Upper Avoca River – Catchment Action Plan

STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT:

November 2007

Document history

REVISION

ISSUE DATE VERSION NO. AUTHOR(S) CHECKED APPROVED 17.08.2007 1 A.Vlok R. Hardie K.Travis 3.09.2007 2 N. Jiricek K.Travis 16.11.2007 3 K.Travis M. Stacey K.Travis

DISTRIBUTION

VERSION NO. ISSUED TO DESCRIPTION 1 Megan Kreutzer Draft 1 2 Megan Kreutzer Draft 2 – Community Ready 3 Megan Kreutzer Final Draft

CITATION

Please cite this document as: Vlok, A., Jiricek, N., Travis, K., and Hardie, R. (2007). Upper Avoca Catchment Action Plan – Strategy development. Report by Alluvium and HLA for North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly, Victoria.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: i Contents

1 Purpose 1

2 Objectives 2

3 Development process 3

3.1 Review of existing reports 3 3.2 Community and stakeholder engagement 3 3.3 Principles underpinning actions 4 3.4 Development of monitoring and evaluation program 4 4 Background 5

4.1 North Central region overview 5 4.2 Avoca River overview 8 4.3 Upper Avoca – the project area 10 5 Selecting priority river reaches 11

5.1 Determining waterway condition 11 5.2 Waterway values, threats and risks 11 5.3 Principles 12 5.4 Selection criteria 13 5.5 Priority river reaches 13 6 Community engagement outcomes 14

7 Upper Avoca Catchment Action Plan 15

7.1 Focus of effort 15 7.2 What has been excluded from this plan 16 8 Action Plans 18

9 Monitoring success 45

9.1 Monitoring program 46 10 Data gaps 47

11 Education and training opportunities 48

12 References 49

Appendix A - Components of strategies and action plans

Appendix B - Upper Avoca reach risk matrix tables

Appendix C - All actions from literature review

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: ii

List of tables

Table 1. Summary of North Central waterway condition according to the 1999 Index of Stream Condition (ISC) results 7

Table 2. Value and threat categories assigned to the RiVERS database 12

Table 3 Priority waterway reaches in the Upper Avoca Program Area 13

Table 4. Catchment areas and focus of effort 15

Table 5. Community issues and incorporation into CAP 18

Table 6. Target outcomes from stock exclusion fencing (includes weed & vermin control) 45

Table 7. Target outcomes from revegetation (includes weed & vermin control) 45

Table 8. Target outcomes from erosion control 45

Table 9. Monitoring Program 46

List of figures

Figure 1. Region of the North Central Catchment Management Authority 5

Figure 2. Avoca River catchment waterway condition, according to the 1999 Index of Stream Condition (ISC) results. 9

Figure 3. Upper Avoca Program Area, showing catchment waterway condition according to the 1999 Index of Stream Condition (ISC) results. 10

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: iii Forward

Rivers and waterways make up only a small portion of the Victorian landscape and yet their overall significance for the economy, the ecology and the social fabric of Victoria is immense. Nearly every town in Victoria was situated on or near a river to provide a source of water and transport. Consequently rivers have become entwined in the lives and histories of people.

Rivers have been the focus for recreation, and have provided community meeting places and an attraction for people outside their region. They support a large array of native flora and fauna (many of which are threatened or endangered) and are highly important in the movement and cycling of sediment and nutrients through the landscape.

Virtually all of these values are reliant to some extent on (good) river condition. Waterway health is affected by many factors including clearing of native bush, declining water quality, salinity, modified flow regimes, loss of riparian vegetation, poor land management practices, climate change and fragmentation of floodplains and wetlands. Currently, only 22% of Victoria’s major rivers and streams could be classified as either in good or excellent condition and unfortunately many are continuing to decline.

In response to this challenge, the Victorian Government released the Victorian River Health Strategy (VRHS) which was followed by the more specific North Central River Health Strategy (NCRHS) prepared by the North Cental Catchment Management Authority. The NCRHS provides the framework for communities to work in partnership with Government to manage and restore our rivers and waterways over the long term. It endeavours to ensure the most effective river health benefits for the effort and resources invested.

This Action Plan is informed by the VRHS and NCRHS and focuses on the upper part of the Avoca River catchment. This catchment covers approximately 1.2 million hectares and extends about 340 kilometres from the Great Dividing Range near Amphitheatre, to the Avoca Marshes and into the River Murray. In the Avoca catchment, similar to the rest of Victoria, the impact from land clearing, grazing and cropping enterprises, and urban development has caused a decline in catchment and waterway values

This Catchment Action Plan (CAP) has been designed to provide the finer level of planning and development of actions within priority reaches of the Upper Avoca catchment. Its purpose is to provide realistic targets and guide effort for the next 5 years into activities that will bring about the greatest improvement in river health.

It is expected that through these actions and over time that the high priority reaches will improve in quality and environmental value. It is anticipated that both the riparian zone and instream environment will be reinstated as close to possible its natural pre European condition.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: iv Acknowledgements

There are a number of people who have contributed to this document and their involvement has been instrumental in developing the focus of works.

Steering Committee Members: Megan Kreutzer (North Central CMA), Emma Wolters (North Central CMA), Peter McRostie (North Central CMA), Michelle Bills (North Central CMA), Catherine Fox (North Central CMA), Nigel Binney (GWM Water), Kevin Spence (Northern Grampians / Buloke Landcare Coordinator), Ken Coates (Chair, Avoca / Avon-Richardson Implementation Committee) Doug Streeter (Avoca / Avon-Richardson Implementation Committee).

Public Forums: Melanie Barrot, Barbara Dridan, Marg Pilgrim, Hayden Pilgrim, Keith Scott, John Lusby, Peter Watts, Marion Watts, Aaron Watts, John Proctor, Trevor Stewart, Barry Roberts, Brian Wright, Alan McNaulty, Helen Proctor, Peter Rigby, Greg McNally, Rob O'Shannessy, Glenice Harrison, Peter Coates, Ken Maybery, Elaine Alan Maybery, Pat Dridan.

Stakeholder Forum: Bruce Andrews (Pyrenees Shire), Camille White (North Central CMA), Cameron Morrison (DPI), Andrea Delaney (DPI), Emma Wolters (North Central CMA), Lyndall Rowley (North Central CMA).

CMA Project Management: Megan Kreutzer (North Central CMA).

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: v Acronyms and Abbreviations

ANMS Avoca Nutrient Management Strategy

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

AUSRIVAS Australian River Assessment System

CMA Catchment Management Authority

CAP Catchment Action Plan

DNRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment

DPI Department of Primary Industries

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment (formerly DNRE)

EC Electrical Conductivity

EPA Environment Protection Agency

EWR Environmental Water Reserve

EVC Ecological Vegetation Class

FSR Flow Stressed Ranking

FFG Act Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

ISC Index of Stream Condition

ML Megalitre

NAP National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality

NCCMA North Central Catchment Management Authority

NHT Natural Heritage Trust

NWQMS Australian National Water Quality Management Strategy

RCS Regional Catchment Strategy

RiVERS River Values & Environmental Risk System

RHS River Health Strategy

SDL Sustainable Diversion Limit

SEPP State Environmental Protection Policy

SIGNAL Stream Invertebrate Grade Number

VWQMN Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: vi Executive Summary

Waterways are a highly important feature to the natural environment, local communities and economic prosperity of farming enterprises and towns. These valuable assets are however vulnerable to a number of risks such as, vegetation clearance, salinity, pest plants and feral animals that provide an ongoing management challenge to the government and local community.

In response to this challenge the Victorian Government released the Victorian River Health Strategy (VRHS) and the North Cental Catchment Management Authority (CMA) subsequently prepared the North Central River Health Strategy (NCRHS) that provides the framework for communities to work in partnership with Government to manage and restore our rivers and waterways over the long term.

This Catchment Action Plan (CAP) was developed as an action from the NCRHS and is designed to provide the finer level of planning and management actions within priority river reaches of the Upper Avoca catchment. This document has been produced to enable the CMA and landholders to focus effort on the most important actions to improve waterway health.

The process undertaken to produce this CAP involved the review of a large number of reports that were identified as having actions and targets that pertain to the Upper Avoca Catchment. In reality however, most were either out dated, non specific and provided little useful information. Reviewing these reports did however help to develop an understanding of how this plan should be presented. This should ensure that it does not become idle and is actually used to guide effort and funding for the next 5 years in the Upper Avoca.

The report is structured to provide adequate information on the background to the region, and importantly, the priority setting process undertaken by the CMA. The report is formatted to provide a number of stand alone action plans and maps for each river reach of interest.

Within the floodplain area of the Avoca River the principal focus of effort and investment is to improve and enhance biodiversity values. It is in these areas that the remnant riparian corridor is most intact and improvement of river health is closely linked to improvement in the adjacent vegetation. To protect the internationally important Avoca Marshes and Kerang wetlands, the reaches 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the Upper Avoca River have been identified as priority river reaches and are specifically addressed in this report.

Within the tributary areas, actions that relate to the improvement of water quality and sediment generation have been targeted to protect the instream values of the high priority floodplain river reaches of the Avoca River (Reaches 5, 6, 7 & 8). Reaches 10 (Campbell Creek), 13 (Fentons Creek), 16 (Homebush Creek) and 17 (Mountain Creek) are key tributary reaches that have been identified as priority river reaches and are also specifically addressed in this report.

This report is designed to be brief but to clearly articulate the most important actions for the next five years which will have the greatest impact on improving river health.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: vii 1 Purpose

This Upper Avoca Catchment Action Plan (CAP) provides one to five year detailed on-ground actions in priority river reaches, which when implemented will lead to measurable improvements in river and catchment health.

The need to prepare CAPs is outlined in the North Central River Health Strategy (NCRHS), which forms a key sub-component of the North Central Regional Catchment Strategy (NCRCS) and the Victoria River Health Strategy. The CAP’s function is to provide a level of detail to allow the identification of specific actions. The relationship between the NCRCS, NCRHS and CAPs is depicted in Appendix A.

“Catchment Management Plans provide a finer scale of river health management planning than this broader, regional river health strategy. Involving close consultation with the local community and relevant stakeholder groups and agencies, these plans identify the specific location of actions along priority reaches and the biodiversity linkages throughout the landscape.”

North Central River Health Strategy (page 53)

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 1 2 Objectives

The CAP has the following three main objectives:

Capitalise and build on previous experience, knowledge and reports:

• Review the strategic direction and extensive work in the North Central Regional Catchment Strategy (NCRCS), North Central River Health Strategy (NCRHS) and other previous reports.

• Consolidate and prioritise the strategies and actions in the previous reports.

• Seek input from stakeholders.

Make the best use of limited resources:

• Select areas with the highest values and highest threats and propose management intervention actions which remove threats and/or to maintain/enhance values.

• Select practical actions which yield the best long term result.

• Target specific waterways, landholdings and threats.

Deliver a well regarded CAP:

• Prepare a CAP which is landowner friendly, practical and brief.

• Reflect stakeholder input where appropriate.

• Produce a practical planning tool for Project Managers to direct the delivery of management actions.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 2 3 Development process

The NCCMA has undertaken many investigations and prepared numerous reports and plans in relation natural resource management in the catchment. These documents range in age, relevance, scope, detail and level of planning. Broadly the preparation of the CAP has been based on the following process:

1 A review and consolidation of these existing reports.

2 Input from the community and other stakeholders.

3 Identification of priority reaches and actions.

3.1 Review of existing reports

A large number of documents were reviewed and are included in the references. For the most part, only a few of these documents provided useful recommendations for reach and sub-reach actions to the extent they would provide meaningful input into the CAP.

Of all documents reviewed, the key strategic documents were the:

• Victorian River Health Strategy (VRHS)

• North Central Regional Catchment Strategy (NCRCS)

• North Central Native Vegetation Strategy (NCNVS)

Other documents which provided useful reach and sub-reach action information include the:

• North Central River Health Strategy (NCRHS)

• Avoca Nutrient Management Strategy

• Avoca Nutrient Action Plan

• Avoca Catchment Riparian Vegetation Investigation

• North Central Native Vegetation Plan

3.2 Community and stakeholder engagement

Engaging with the community is critical to establish ownership, awareness, to gather local knowledge and help refine priorities. Ultimately success of this plan will be measured by the knowledge, desire, skill and action of all stakeholders in the catchment.

Two half day community workshops were held at St Arnaud and Avoca on 26 June 2007 and a stakeholder and steering group workshop was held on 27 June 2006. The intended objectives of these workshops included:

1 Explanation of Catchment Action Plans

2 Outline the background, purpose and content of the CAP Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 3 3 Capture community and stakeholder comment and views on:

a. What issues are important and what actions should be pursued

b. Where these issues are located

4 Test the North Central River Health Strategy (i.e. test it the NCRHS priorities align with the community)

5 Build Community Ownership, Awareness and Joint Action

Effort was made to build on (rather than revisit) previous work (particularly the NCRHS) and engagement initiatives.

3.3 Principles underpinning actions

Through discussion with the Project Steering Committee and landholders during the engagement process, a number of principles were developed. These principles underpin the actions presented in this action plan and are described below.

• Actions on Upper Avoca River priority reaches (5, 6, 7 and 8) and some tributaries will provide the most cost effective mechanism to protect the internationally important Avoca Marshes which are located downstream (Section 6.2.13).

• Generally river health is best achieved when the waterway is stable, has a good native vegetation cover, low occurrence of weeds and is protected from stock.

• Mechanical sediment removal is only appropriate to protect assets or where resource extraction is appropriate and approved.

• Investigations and recommendations from previous reports have been based on high value, high threats and high likelihood of threat occurring.

• There are positive and willing landowners.

• Actions are proven to be practical and cost effective.

3.4 Development of monitoring and evaluation program

Many of the documents reviewed have developed a range of targets, monitoring and evaluation procedures which have been subject to considerable discussion and community consultation.

It is important to consider that actions undertaken today may take many years until they achieve the outcomes that may be expected. For instance, a revegetation program may take 10 years until the trees are mature enough to produce seed and another 80 years until they provide hollows for habitat. The monitoring program needs to be realistic and measure issues that are appropriate for the time scale of the works.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 4 4 Background

4.1 North Central region overview

The region of the North Central Catchment Management Authority (CMA) covers approximately three million hectares or 13% of the State of Victoria. The region extends from the River Murray in the north, to the Central Highlands in the south; the Mount Camel Range forms the eastern boundary of the region while the internally drained Avon-Richardson Basin forms part of the western border (Figure 1). The North Central region contains four river catchments (Campaspe, Loddon, Avoca and Wimmera).

Figure 1. Region of the North Central Catchment Management Authority

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 5 Community

The North Central region’s population now exceeds 200,000 people, most of who live in the larger urban centres including Swan Hill, Echuca, Donald, St Arnaud, Bendigo, Castlemaine, Maryborough and Creswick.

European exploration and settlement of the North Central region was closely linked to waterways and people of the North Central region today retain a strong connection to waterways. Waterways are widely used for recreational pursuits such as boating, swimming and fishing. The broad community places a high value on water and waterways, from which it derives many benefits, including irrigation, stock watering, domestic and industrial supply, tourism, habitat for native flora and fauna, recreational and visual amenity values, regional identity and nature conservation.

An intrinsic relationship between Indigenous culture and land has been maintained for over 40,000 years. The land continues to inform Indigenous identity and community today. Traditionally, Indigenous people have a strong affinity with waterways and water bodies as these provided a vital source of food, water and camping sites.

Biophysical

The Avoca River flows into a series of lakes and wetlands (the Avoca Marshes). During flood events, the Avoca River may flow to the River Murray and to a further series of lakes via stream channels. Although not part of the North Central region, the River Murray between Echuca and Swan Hill lies on the border of the region. The interaction between the North Central region and the River Murray is very significant – the River Murray is the single largest source of water in the region for irrigation, while the Loddon, Campaspe and Avoca rivers all contribute water, salt and nutrients to the Murray.

The region’s waterways play a crucial role in supplying water. Irrigation water supplies from the Murray and Goulburn River systems and stock and domestic supplies from the Wimmera system supplement the region’s surface water resources.

Groundwater is a significant and valuable component of the region’s water resources and is used extensively for stock and irrigation purposes and increasingly for town water supplies.

Land

Horticultural, dairying and mixed enterprises cover much of the lower Loddon and Campaspe riverine plains, which are supported by an extensive irrigation infrastructure. Dryland agricultural land uses, such as cropping and grazing, cover much of the central and upper areas.

The catchments of the various rivers and streams within the region include areas of flood-prone land, where flooding has historically caused substantial damage. More than 5,000 square kilometres of land across the region is subject to inundation by a 1 in 100 year flood.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 6 River health

Within the region many natural waterways (particularly ephemeral systems) and floodplains have been cleared for agriculture. However, despite these losses, the Kerang Wetlands and Gunbower Forest have been protected and recognised as wetlands of international importance.

Unfortunately, in the North Central region almost no waterway is classified as being in excellent or good condition (Table 1). More specifically for the Avoca Catchment, 75% and 24% of stream length is in moderate and poor condition respectively (Figure 2).

Table 1. Summary of North Central waterway condition according to the 1999 Index of Stream Condition (ISC) results

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 7 4.2 Avoca River overview

Community

The Avoca River catchment (Figure 2) covers approximately 1.2 million hectares. It extends about 340 kilometres from the Great Dividing Range near Amphitheatre, to the Avoca Marshes and into the River Murray.

Today agricultural activity in the Avoca catchment is based on grazing and cropping. Broadacre grazing is the predominant agricultural land use in the catchment’s south and broadacre cropping in the north. Grape production, oil seeds and pulses are important industry sectors in the south of the catchment. When flowing, the waterways of the Avoca catchment are popular for recreational fishing, swimming, canoeing and camping.

Biophysical

The Avoca River is an anabranching river system and has a highly variable flow. The river ceases to flow for many months during dry years. Twelve weirs influence flow, but no major storages regulate flow. The Avoca River rises at the foot of Mt Lonarch, near Amphitheatre. From its headwaters to Charlton, the Avoca River flows within a relatively confined valley. Moving downstream, the channel capacity decreases into a wider floodplain.

One of the most significant and obvious issues is the occurrence of gully erosion in the upper reaches of the catchment and the subsequent transport of sediment downstream. The major source of sediment in the Avoca catchment over the last century has been gully erosion in the headwaters of first order streams. It has been estimated that there are about 150 km of gullies in the catchment with an additional 200 km of deepened and widened streams. Most of the gullies would have reached their current state before the 1940s and it is thought that gully erosion in the catchment has reached its topographic threshold.

Despite a theoretical reduction in gully erosion and consequent reduction of sedimentation in the lower reaches, anecdotal evidence suggests that accumulated sediment in the waterways is still a highly significant issue. Landowners at the community workshops advised that sedimentation has eliminated deep water holes and fish, covered springs, exacerbated weed issues and caused channel modification.

There are many wetland areas in the Avoca catchment, the majority of which are located in the northern part of the catchment; including the Avoca Marshes, part of the Ramsar listed Kerang Lakes.

Native vegetation has been significantly modified in the catchment and the larger stands of remaining native vegetation are located on the mountainous regions and along some of the larger waterway systems. Many native vegetation communities within the Avoca catchment are considered endangered or vulnerable because of the extent of land clearing. There are also many threatened flora and fauna species that are dependent upon the aquatic and terrestrial riparian environment.

In summary, key issues in the Avoca catchment include sedimentation, weeds, biodiversity decline, degrading water resources and loss of soil health.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 8

Figure 2. Avoca River catchment waterway condition, according to the 1999 Index of Stream Condition (ISC) results.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 9 4.3 Upper Avoca – the project area

The target area for the development of the CAP is the Upper Avoca area, which includes the southern portion of the Avoca River catchment, extending about 250km north from the Great Dividing Range near Amphitheatre to Charlton (Figure 3). The area includes the townships of St Arnaud, Logan, Emu, Bealiba and Natte Yallock.

The area includes the main stem of the Avoca River (reaches 5, 6, 7 and 8) to the township of Charlton and ten of its major tributaries. Upstream of Avoca, Glenlogie Creek (reach 20) enters near Amphitheatre followed by Rutherford Creek (reach 19). Downstream of Avoca, Number Two Creek (reach 18), Mountain Creek (reach 17) and Cherry Tree Creek (reach 15) enter from the west and Homebush Creek (reach 16) flows from the east. Fentons Creek (reaches 13 and 14) enters the Avoca River at Logan, while Strathfillan Creek (reach 11) is fed by Middle Creek (reach 12) and meets the river downstream of Logan.

Figure 3. Upper Avoca Program Area, showing catchment waterway condition according to the 1999 Index of Stream Condition (ISC) results.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 10 5 Selecting priority river reaches

There are many waterways across the state needing government investment to improve their health. However given that there is only a limited amount of funding available, the State Government has decided to identify and focus only on priority areas. This approach focuses on protecting remaining high value areas (with high threats) and therefore accepts that some lower priority reaches may continue to decline. This ensures we are investing time and effort into the areas that currently have the greatest community benefit.

The process to identify priority river reaches is a substantial task. It is however important for the community to understand the thinking that sits behind the CMA’s decisions and the following describes the process of how priority reaches were identified.

5.1 Determining waterway condition

The NCRHS sets priorities and targets for river health management at the river reach scale (a section of stream normally around 10–30 kilometres long) based on the Index of Stream Condition (ISC). The ISC method is a state wide approach that is based on five sub-indices that measure the extent of change from natural or ideal conditions. An overall condition rating is assigned to a reach i.e. excellent, good, moderate, poor or very poor. Table 1 and Figure 3 show the outcome of the ISC assessment for the Upper Avoca catchment.

The 1999 ISC data indicate that 76% (400 km) of the length of waterways in the Avoca catchment were in moderate condition and 24% (135 km) in poor condition (Table 1; NCCMA, 2005a). Based on 2004 ISC scores and estimated 1999 scores (where available), changes in resource condition can be gauged. The results indicate that reaches 10, 11, 12, 14 and 19 all showed declines of two or more ISC points for one or more subindices. For example, at reach 19 the instream habitat subindex score declined from 5 in 1999 to 1 in 2004. Reaches 6, 13, 17, 18 and 20 showed declines of two ISC points. Of these, four reaches were on waterways draining into the Avoca River, namely Fentons, Mountain, Number Two and Glenlogie Creeks, and only one was on the main stem of the Avoca River, reach 6 (just north of the Cheery Tree Creek/Avoca River confluence). The combined results indicate deterioration has occurred in most of the major waterways draining into the Avoca River, and the deterioration was mostly associated with the streamside zone, hydrology and physical form sub-indices.

5.2 Waterway values, threats and risks

The River Values and Environmental Risk System, known as RiVERS, is a framework for the prioritisation of river health management programs based on values and threats. A value is defined as something considered to be of importance or beneficial to river health. A threat is defined as an action or a process likely to cause harm. The Victorian Waterway Managers Forum and Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) have agreed on a state-wide list of values and threats which are presented in Table 2.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 11

Table 2. Value and threat categories assigned to the RiVERS database

5.3 Principles

To provide a method to sort the data captured from ISC and AusRivers inputs a number of principles were proposed in the NCRHS. Using these principles and the data allowed the identification of priority river reaches and hence identified where the investment of funding should be targeted.

These principles are underpinned by the notion that it is more cost effective and more likely to lead to better environmental outcomes if the focus is on protecting and enhancing remaining high value natural areas (called ‘high value assets’), rather than restoring highly degraded areas. The principles are:

Principle 1: Protect and enhance ecologically healthy rivers and representative rivers

Principle 2: Minimise risks to connected high value assets

Principle 3: Protect and enhance reaches of high risk

Principle 4: Protect reaches with high environmental, social and economic value

Principle 5: Maintain and enhance community capacity, awareness, motivation and involvement across the region

Principle 6: Protect individual sites of significance along regional waterways

Principle 7: Prevent damage and degradation of our rivers from future development activities

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 12 5.4 Selection criteria

Setting priorities for waterway management considers both the values and threats to ensure resources are allocated to the most important areas and issues. On this basis, the overall objective of the NCRHS for managing river health in the Avoca catchment is to minimise risk to the Ramsar listed Kerang Lakes/Avoca Marshes and to protect river values that contribute to its status as a ‘Representative’ river. This is particularly relevant when assessing Principle 1 and 2.

Of the 101 reaches in the North Central region the NCRHS identified 56 priority reaches according to these principles. Within these 56 reaches, reaches 5 to 8 (on the main stem of the Upper Avoca River) are considered to be priority reaches. An extract from the NCRHS is provided below which articulates the priorities for these reaches.

Table 3 Priority waterway reaches in the Upper Avoca Program Area

5.5 Priority river reaches

The priority river reaches have been identified in this report and hence the focus for this CAP is to ‘Protect and enhance’ reaches 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the Avoca River. For a detailed understanding of the values and threats to each of these priority reaches, please refer to Appendix B.

The water quality of these priority river reaches is impacted by upstream generation of sediment and nutrients. This CAP has therefore also identified the most likely sources of sediment generation and also listed these tributaries as priority areas to protect reaches 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the Avoca River.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 13 6 Community engagement outcomes

As part of the CAP process the community was engaged to help set priorities and actions. The following points represent consistent messages raised at the community and stakeholder meetings. Where appropriate and consistent with regional objectives, these points have been incorporated into the CAP and actions taking into account the criteria and principles used to select priority reaches and actions.

Loss of overall habitat, economic and social values:

• Large water holes • Fish/fishing • Wildlife (e.g. snakes and birds) • Low/no flows • Springs dried up • Litter in town sites

Sediment accumulation in waterway (more of an issue in reaches 5 & 6)

• Impact on deep pools • Impact on instream channel • Impact on change in watercourse • Allows weed / vegetation intrusion (more frequent flooding) • Large timber and asset risk in flood • Flood risk at Avoca and Charlton

Salinity levels in waterway:

• Impact on all aspects of river health • Unable to water stock

Weeds:

• Chilean Needle Grass • Gorse • Castor Oil Plant • Spiny Rush • Ash (urban)

Native Plants which may require human management:

• River Red Gum (especially regeneration after flood) • Cumbungi

Land management of stock exclusion fencing:

• Department of Primary Industries (DPI) can’t provide money for fencing Crown land boundaries because Crown land doesn’t fence their land • Conditions of Crown Land leases (i.e. 99 year)

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 14 7 Upper Avoca Catchment Action Plan

With direction from the Steering Committee it was agreed that this CAP needed to be concise and easy to understand by the agencies and farming community. As discussed, part of the process undertaken involved reviewing a large number of previous reports (refer to references). These were reviewed in an attempt to extract all of the actions that applied to the Upper Avoca Catchment. A key finding was that many of these reports were either out-dated, not used, or contained a vast amount of actions, thereby requiring unrealistic funding.

In the filtering exercise undertaken it is important to note that the multitude of actions have not been disregarded altogether but marked for review in the next five year plan. These actions have been captured and presented in Appendix C for future reference.

7.1 Focus of effort

Consistent with the NCRHS, this plan is strongly driven by the philosophy that effort needs to be focused into key tasks that result in the best value for money and greatest impact in improving river health of priority reaches. The focus of effort for this CAP can broadly be broken into two principal areas which include the floodplain and tributary areas.

Within the floodplain area of the Avoca River (reaches, 5, 6, 7 & 8) the principal focus of effort and investment is to improve and enhance biodiversity values, with the intention of protecting the internationally important Kerang Wetlands and Avoca Marshes. It is in these areas that the remnant riparian corridor is most intact and improvement of river health is closely linked to improvement in the adjacent vegetation.

Within the tributary areas, actions that relate to the improvement of water quality and sediment generation should be undertaken to protect the instream values of the high priority floodplain reaches of the Avoca River downstream. Table 4 captures where effort should be focused.

Table 4. Catchment areas and focus of effort

Catchment area Focus of effort Likely actions Floodplain area Biodiversity improvement Stock exclusion fencing (reaches 5,6,7 & 8) Off stream watering Weed control Rabbit control Revegetation Upper Tributary area Sediment generation and Stock exclusion fencing water quality Off stream watering Rabbit control Gully stabilization and revegetation Recharge exclusion fencing Planting of buffer strips

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 15 7.2 What has been excluded from this plan

Almost as important as what has been included in this report, is what has been excluded. These actions have deemed not to be included in this 5 year plan as they are either not appropriate or considered a second priority and should be reconsidered in the next 5 year plan.

Instream habitat works

Large wood naturally recruits into a waterway either through tree death or undermining of the bank. Where the riparian vegetation is sparse and may lack large hard wood species, there may not be sufficient timber falling into the waterway to create the ideal habitat for fish and invertebrates.

The instream habitat works identified in a number of the reviewed plans actually sourcing large logs and physically placing them into the waterway. Such actions were identified as actions in reaches 6, 7 and 8.

Recent instream habitat works within the GHCMA region cost around $400 per log installed, meaning this is a very expensive task and the costs proposed in the reports reviewed were substantially undercosted. The installation of large timber in engineered log structures may provide benefit in some scouring and improve the habitat value of the waterway bed, but given the large volume of sand in the system, they would likely need to be significantly engineered to avoid being smothered, further adding to the cost.

It is proposed that limited funding is better spent on actions that provide better value for money. In reality, the best way to create a self sustaining system of large wood in waterways is to ensure the timber is growing on the banks. Therefore the focus in the next five years has been on the protection and enhancement of the riparian vegetation and not instream habitat works.

Stormwater Management Plan actions

There are a number of actions that relate to the implementation of stormwater management plan actions. As a general rule, urban stormwater has elevated levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and suspended solids and has the potential to transport litter.

Nitrogen is predominantly from atmospheric sources and not a direct result of urbanisation. Phosphorus is normally attached to sediment, and it is proposed that the level of sediment and suspended solids generated in urban areas is effectively negligible when compared to agricultural runoff and bed and bank erosion of gullies and waterways.

Litter is the other area of concern but engagement with the community and stakeholders did not consider litter to be a major issue.

It is proposed that pursuing Stormwater Management Plan actions does not present the best value for money if the focus of effort is to improve the health of the waterway in the next five years. Given the impact of stormwater is relatively minor, it is suggested that these actions are placed on hold until a time that all other higher priority actions have been completed.

Septic tank management

Septic tank management was raised in a number of reports as an issue that needs to be addressed. It was difficult to determine the extent of the issue from the literature but generally nutrients levels were not identified as a key issue in the priority reaches nor did the community Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 16 identify any issues regarding high nutrients. This does not mean that high nutrients are not an issue, but does suggest that that are not on top of the priority list. Septic tank issues have not been included in this 5 year plan but may be considered in later plans.

Intensive industry effluent management

Piggeries were raised as a topic for discussion during the community forums and actions were identified in some of the reviewed reports to “implement best practice in the intensive animal industry associated with effluent management”.

There was no tangible evidence that effluent from any intensive animal industries was impacting on the waterways in the catchment and discussion with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) suggests the issue is well managed through the provision of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

It is proposed that any actions associated with effluent management should not be part of this CAP. Any actions should be undertaken by the EPA and are excluded from the scope of catchment planning.

Flood plain management

There were a number of actions that pertained to flood plain management within the reports reviewed. Although it was generally agreed that flooding is an issue of concern especially on the lower reaches, discussion with CMA staff revealed that the lack of data across the entire region made it difficult to progress local flooding issues. Local governments are also concerned with flooding, current sediment/timber accumulation and how this may impact private and public assets in a flood event. It is recommended that this concern is communicated to the NCCMA Floodplain Manager to consider actions along with other flood mapping priorities across the region.

Environmental flow recommendations

Actions associated with environmental flow recommendations are basically aligned with checking if extraction currently exceeds flow recommendations. This issue was not raised as being significant to the community nor the stakeholder group; however, given the issues of ongoing low rainfall, it is appropriate that it should maintain the interest of the CMA.

Actions associated with this issue have not been included in the action tables, but should be considered further if there is more detailed feedback received during the public exhibition process.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 17 8 Action Plans

The following tables present the actions and maps for the nominated reaches. This information has been presented so that it is relatively simple to extract an A3 plan and map to provide to a landholder / landcare group to illustrate where the focus of effort should be over the next 5 years.

The Action Plans provide a basic vision of the system at 5 years and prioritises actions in case funding is limited. Where possible the extent of the action has been quantified and an indicative cost provided.

Although the action plans appear to provide a range of simplistic actions, they have been developed with consideration to community input and a focus on how to direct effort for the greatest impact on river health. Table 5helps to communicate that the implementation of actions identified in the action plans will address the majority of community concerns raised in section 6.

Table 5. Community issues and incorporation into CAP

Concern raised Action to address issues Incorporated into action plans Loss of large water Reduce sediment input through control of erosion Yes holes Loss of fish/fishing Reduce sediment input through control of erosion and fence and Yes revegetate waterway. Protection of refuge areas (water holes) through fencing, revegetation and maintenance of water levels in holes during dry conditions where possible. Wildlife (e.g. Improve habitat values by excluding stock and revegetation Yes snakes and birds) activities Low/no flows Issue principally climate driven and cannot be addressed through No management actions Springs dried up Issue principally climate driven and cannot be addressed through No management actions Impact on instream Reduce sediment input through control of erosion Yes channel Impact on change Reduce sediment input through control of erosion Yes in watercourse More frequent Reduce sediment input through control of erosion Yes flooding through weed / vegetation intrusion Large timber and Large timber plays a vital role in river ecology and is not targeted No asset risk in flood as a general action. Areas of threat to high value assets may require intervention, but such sites have not been identified in this process Flood risk at Avoca There is a substantial amount of work required to understand Yes and Charlton flood risk, however, a reduction of sediment input through control of erosion will maintain greater cross sectional capacity and can therefore convey greater amounts of water within the channel Weeds (various Control weeds in priority areas to protect high value vegetation Yes species) Salinity levels in Implement recharge revegetation as directed by the Dryland No waterway Salinity Management Plan

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 18 Action Plan - REACH 5 Current Condition: The indigenous vegetation of Reach 5 is a fragmented subset of the larger agriculturally dominated vegetation commu- Priority Actions nity. This means the existing remnants have a high edge to volume ratio allowing greater light and wind penetration creating conditions that favour exotic grasses and a poor environment for the establishment of seed from indigenous Action Very High High Med Low species. Along this reach the riparian buffer ranges from good condition with a diversity of cover and understorey species to degraded which is significantly compromised by weeds and stock access. The areas of ‘good’ vegetation condi- Exclude stock from all nominated areas of high X tion are the target for works in this 5 year plan and generally these areas have a reasonably intact over and understo- priority remnant vegetation. rey community but are in slow decline due to grazing pressure and ongoing weed invasion. These areas of ‘good’ condition are scattered along the length of Reach 5 and not well connected. Eradicate weeds and vermin for all nominated X areas of high priority remnant vegetation.

Install off stream watering for all nominated areas X of high priority remnant vegetation. Proposed Condition: Revegetate priority areas to link nominated areas X The proposed condition of Reach 5 involves the exclusion of all stock through repair of existing fencing, and construc- of high value vegetation. tion of new fences. This will create a buffer strip of a minimum of 25 m along the length of the waterway that is identified as having ‘good’ vegetation condition and will provide the greatest value for NRM outcomes. Areas of ‘good’ Assess need for fish ladder at Yawong weir. X vegetation will be joined through linking plantations where appropriate to improve longitudinal connectivity. Weeds and vermin will be well controlled to allow the regeneration of robust over, middle and understorey species. Ground storey species may or may not establish depending on the extent of invasive grasses. With the exclusion of stock the in- Ensure protection of fish refuge area (water hole) X stream and ephemeral environment should improve in species diversity and density. in nominated areas within this reach 5 year action plan

Extent Year Output Target for action Outcome Target for reach Cost of activity Responsibility

Action 1 2 3 4 5 Survey existing fences along all priority areas of high value vege- N/A X X Fences adequately exclude stock. Fences adequately exclude stock. Minimal Landholder with support tation and where necessary repair fences and gates to exclude from NCCMA/DPI. stock. Where no fencing exists, construct fences to exclude stock in 18km# X X X Fences adequately exclude stock 1 Improvement of one in the measure- $92,0001 Landholder with support nominated priority areas of high value vegetation. year after construction. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works. Undertake weed and vermin control in all areas that are fenced off. 7ha* X X X All significant weed species have Improvement of one in the measure- $7,0002 Landholder with support been eradicated after three years. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

Install off stream watering where required at areas that are fenced 20 sites X X X Off stream watering installed and op- Improvement of one in the measure- $20,0003 Landholder with support off and if located in priority areas. erational. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works. Fence and revegetate priority areas to link areas of high value 8km# X X X Fencing installed and stock ade- Improvement of one in the measure- $65,0004 Landholder with support vegetation (aim 25m buffer and 4 rows of vegetation) along water- 10,400plants^ quately excluded. Plants survival rate ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. way. Works include 8km fencing and 10,400 plants. of 80% at two years. Weeds con- of works. trolled within fenced area for first three years.

Undertake maintenance on all new plantings to control weeds. 8km X X X Weeds controlled within fenced area Improvement of one in the measure- $2000 Landholder with support for first three years. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works. Undertake an assessment to determine if a fish ladder is required X Undertake assessment using qualified N/A $10,000 NCCMA at Yawong weir. Consideration should be given to the value of the consultant. actual barrier and current and future habitat values of upstream. Undertake inspection of the fish refuge areas from Gower East X An understanding of the site and im- As per output. Minimal NCCMA/DPI in conjunction Bridge and immediately downstream, Yawong Weir (500m up- proved protection and enhancement if with local angling club. stream + 1km downstream) and Charlton weir pool with local an- required. gling clubs. . Discuss the need for any fencing and revegetation activities, and to ensure no inappropriate amounts of water is being extracted from these specific deep pool locations.

# length includes both sides of waterway. i.e a 1km reach will have a fencing requirement of 2km. Also assumes no fencing present and there- 1 assumes $5/m for materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process. fore figures and costs presented provide the worse possible scenario. 2 assumes $1000/ha and is an annual cost. * assumes an average buffer width of 25 meters. 3 assumes 1000/site. ^ plants include a mix of 1/3 overstorey and 2/3 understorey. 4 planting assumes $2.50/plant for materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process. also assumes $5/m for fencing materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process. CHARLTON

YEUNGROON RICHMOND PLAINS

E NINE MILE

F Legend Waterway G Nutrient Action Plan Priority Segment Reach Vegetation Condition

COONOOER Good H BRIDGE Marginal Poor CAP Nominated Reaches Priority Areas

A Area of High Value Vegetation to be Fenced D Linkage Areas of Fencing and Revegetation

Erossion Control Investigation Infrastructure Main Road - Unsealed Minor Road - Urban Management Unit Boundary CAMS DATA

# Area of effective pest animal control (ha) # Area of perennial pasture (ha)

O GOWAR # Area of remnant enhanced (ha)

L k E EAST # Area of remnant protectede (ha) G re W O C eh D # Area of salinity discharge control (ha)la V Cre A s ek n O # o R Area of salinity trecharge control (ha) n E POLE RO e K AD # Area of wetlandF protected or enhanced (ha)

R U MCC O A HON ROAD # Area protected by fencing (ha) R # Area protected by stock containment construction (ha) AD O # Area re-vegetated (ha) R RN BU # In-stream or gully erosion control site (no) ER HEWITT RO D AD FREEM A ED AN ROAD v # Length of gully stabilised (km) W o c a # Length of stream protected or enhanced (km) R

D iv A e # Off stream watering point established (no)

D O OA # r R R Y F Area of effective weed control (ha) A D T O d R RD x B A S ROA m D A O . D Area of remnant enhanced (ha) 7 A E R

0 l O

R u R N

J S A A

4 U N Area of remnant protected (ha)

0 N R W M _ R U E 0 A O

1 Y B E Area of salinity recharge control (ha) S G h S R L c IA D E S A R a ST ARNAUD t A D A F H B N e r I D na T Area protected by fencing (ha) O R G O E ud Y _ H R C X 1 W W ree R STOCKHAM BRIDGE ROAD 0 k O A Y R 9 Y D A Area re-vegetated (ha) A 2 O L D

3 K A O 0 #

0 D Area using improved irrigation management (ha) 6 PARK ROAD #

\ D # A#Y OA S ERA HIGHW I WIMM # # N R Length of gully stabilised (km) G D OW c OA R r TERY R B A ME # \ CE Length of stream improvement (km)

S I FIGURE

l e REACH 5 - AVOCA RIVER

l h North Central Catchment Management Authority

\ I

o i Upper Avoca CAP DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 55

o 0550 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400

L Upper Avoca Catchment, Victoria 1

F Metres

PROJECT ID M60032901 DATE DRAWN 03 July 2007 DRAWN BY EJW LAST MODIFIED EJW 16 Nov 2007 APPROVED Action Plan - REACH 6

Current Condition: Priority Actions The indigenous vegetation of Reach 6 is a fragmented subset of the larger agriculturally dominated vegetation community. This means the existing remnants have a high edge to volume ratio allowing greater light and wind penetration Action Very High High Med Low creating conditions that favour exotic grasses and a poor environment for the establishment of seed from indigenous species. Along this reach the riparian buffer ranges from good condition with a diversity of over and understorey spe- Exclude stock for all areas of nominated high pri- X cies to degraded and is significantly compromised by weeds and stock access. The areas of ‘good’ vegetation condi- ority remnant vegetation. tion are the target for works in this 5 year plan and generally these areas have reasonably intact over and under storey communities but are in slow decline due to grazing pressure and ongoing weed invasion. These areas of ‘good’ condi- Eradicate weeds and vermin for all areas of nomi- X tion are scattered along the length of Reach 6 and not well connected. nated high priority remnant vegetation. Install off stream watering for all areas of nomi- X Proposed Condition: nated high priority remnant vegetation. The proposed condition of Reach 6 involves the exclusion of all stock through repair of existing fencing, and construc- Revegetate priority areas to link areas of high X tion of new fences. A buffer strip will be created of a minimum of 25 m along the length of the waterway that is identi- value vegetation. fied as having good vegetation condition and will provide the greatest value for money for NRM outcomes. Areas of ‘good’ vegetation will be joined through linking plantations where appropriate to improve longitudinal connectivity. Weeds and vermin will be well controlled to allow the regeneration of robust over, middle and understorey species. Ground storey species may or may not establish depending on the extent of invasive grasses. With the exclusion of stock the instream and ephemeral environment should improve in species diversity and density.

5 year action plan

Extent Year Output Target for action Outcome Target for reach Cost of activity Responsibility

Where no fencing exists, construct fences to exclude stock in 5km# X X X Fences adequately exclude stock 1 Improvement of one in the measure- $25,0001 Landholder with support nominated priority areas of high value vegetation. year after construction. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

Undertake weed and vermin control in all areas fenced off. 3ha* X X X All significant weed species have Improvement of one in the measure- $3,0002 Landholder with support been eradicated after three years. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

Install off stream watering where required at areas fenced off and 10 sites X X X Off stream watering installed and op- Improvement of one in the measure- $10,0003 Landholder with support if located in nominated priority areas. erational. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

Fence and revegetate priority areas to link areas of high value 6km# X X X Fencing installed and stock ade- Improvement of one in the measure- $50,0004 Landholder with support vegetation (aim 25m buffer and 4 rows of vegetation) along wa- 8,000 plants^ quately excluded. Plants survival rate ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. terway. Works include 6km fencing and 8,000 plants. of 80% at two years. Weeds con- of works. trolled within fenced area for first three years.

Fence and revegetate priority areas to link areas of nominated 0.6km# X X X Fencing installed and stock ade- Movement of fauna species between $5,0004 Landholder with support high value vegetation off waterway. i.e connection of waterway 800 plants^ quately excluded. Plants survival rate the riparian corridor and large stands from NCCMA/DPI. environment to large stands of terrestrial vegetation (aim 25m of 80% at two years. Weeds con- of remnant vegetation. (Biodiversity program) corridor and 4 rows of vegetation). trolled within fenced area for first three years.

Undertake maintenance on all new plantings to control weeds. 6.6km X X X Weeds controlled within fenced area Improvement of one in the measure- $10,000 Landholder with support for first three years. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

# length includes both sides of waterway. i.e a 1km reach will have a fencing requirement of 2km. Also assumes no fencing present and therefore 1 assumes $5/m for materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process figures and costs presented provide the worse possible scenario. 2 assumes $1000/ha * assumes a average buffer width of 25 meters. 3 assumes 1000/site ^ plants include a mix of 1/3 overstorey and 2/3 understorey 4 planting assumes $2.50/plant for materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process. also assumes $5/m for fencing materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process e e r

k C ) a e s ( R e n k r O o e T t C LOGAN e C n r O e C R F n P la l i f h n t

a V ll a i A r f t N h S t R

a E r t RA N

E A S IMM W N a ud E C L re O e C L

k T

O G THREE CHAIN P

E N

U L BURKES FLAT G MOORE

O SCOLLARY P

E # WHEELER A U N I L L E D E

G R L D A

A N

I A

R W MALE

S D C O H I CHEPSTOWE L N I N T k

I e re C s e n ra h c o C

RINALDI COCHRANES CREEK

r e iv R

a N c o A v

G A

R M

T S

I G F G N o I l N e O y LOWER EMU S s B T C A UNOrLLY EMU W D e ek C AME RON C

Legend

WHYTE U M E Waterway Nutrient Action Plan Priority Segment

k Reach Vegetation Condition

e r Good C

B n Marginal i A l S u Poor S a O p r FESCIONI a MAF

T CAP Nominated Reaches Priority Areas

A Area of High Value Vegetation to be Fenced A

v o D Linkage Areas of Fencing and Revegetation c a

R Erossion Control Investigation i v e r Infrastructure Main Road - Unsealed DALYENONG Minor Road - Urban Management Unit Boundary # D CAMS DATA

# Area of effective pest animal control (ha) # Area of perennial pasture (ha) # Area of remnant enhanced (ha)

E # Area of remnant protected (ha) G R AR U ## C HD # Area of salinity discharge control (ha) B ALE # # # Area of salinity recharge control (ha) S ##

# T

T # Area of wetland protected or enhanced (ha) N ## E O B ## X # ARCHDALE # Area protected by fencing (ha) I ### D # # # E # Area protected by stock containment construction (ha) # ## # ## Area re-vegetated (ha) # In-stream or gully erosion control site (no) K

O R # Length of gully stabilised (km) E

C E

G T A

A R E # Length of stream protected or enhanced (km) L

U P # MA F S THE B R k # Off stream watering point established (no) e e r Area of effective weed control (ha) d C x San m y d . k # y Area of remnant enhanced (ha) 7 Cre 0 o l F ek u k J m e Area of remnant protected (ha) 4 S e

0 r

_ C B 0 y

1 Area of salinity recharge control (ha) r d h o n c # # a a w S

e n Area protected by fencing (ha) R k _ # e 1 e H 0 r Area re-vegetated (ha) 9 i l 2 # C l 3 # e C 0 ## e 0 Area using improved irrigation management (ha) # r r 6 T e M # \ ry e

S r

I ## k Length of gully stabilised (km) MOY e G RE h c ISK r NOR # C A TH Length of stream improvement (km) \ # #

0 \ #

S I FIGURE

l e REACH 6 - AVOCA RIVER

l h North Central Catchment Management Authority I

: n DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 55

o i Upper Avoca CAP

a c 0390 780 1,560 2,340 3,120

Upper Avoca Catchment, Victoria 2

F Metres

PROJECT ID M60032901 DATE DRAWN 03 July 2007 DRAWN BY EJW LAST MODIFIED EJW 16 Nov 2007 APPROVED Action Plan - REACH 7

Current Condition: Priority Actions The indigenous vegetation of Reach 7 is a fragmented subset of the larger agriculturally dominated vegetation community. This means the existing remnants have a high edge to volume ratio allowing greater light and wind penetration Action Very High High Med Low creating conditions that favour exotic grasses and a poor environment for the establishment of seed from indigenous species. Along the reach the riparian buffer ranges from good condition with a diversity of over and understorey spe- Exclude stock from all areas of nominated high X cies to degraded which is significantly compromised by weeds and stock access. The areas of ‘good’ vegetation con- priority remnant vegetation. dition are the target for works in this 5 year plan and generally these areas have reasonably intact over and under storey communities but are in slow decline due to grazing pressure and ongoing weed invasion. These areas of ‘good’ Eradicate weeds and vermin for all areas of nomi- X condition are fairly minimal and are scattered along the length of Reach 7. . nated high priority remnant vegetation. Install off stream watering for all areas of nomi- X Proposed Condition: nated high priority remnant vegetation. The proposed condition of Reach 7 involves the exclusion of all stock through repair of existing fencing, and construc- Revegetate priority areas to link areas of nomi- X tion of new fences. A buffer will be created of a minimum of 25m along the length of the waterway that is identified as nated high value riparian vegetation. having ‘good’ vegetation condition. Areas of ‘good’ vegetation will be joined through linking plantations where appropriate to improve longitudinal connectivity. Weeds and vermin will be well controlled to allow the regeneration of robust over, middle and under storey species. Ground storey species may or may not establish depending on the extent of invasive grasses. With the exclusion of stock, the instream and ephemeral environment should improve in species diversity and density.

5 year action plan

Extent Year Output Target for action Outcome Target for reach Cost of activity Responsibility

Where no fencing exists, construct fences to exclude stock in 3.5km# X X X Fences adequately exclude stock 1 Improvement of one in the measure- $17,0001 Landholder with support nominated priority areas of high value vegetation. year after construction. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

Undertake weed and vermin control in all areas fenced off. 30ha* X X X All significant weed species have Improvement of one in the measure- $30,0002 Landholder with support been eradicated after three years. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

Fence and revegetate priority areas to link areas of high value 12km# X X X Fencing installed and stock ade- Improvement of one in the measure- $100,0004 Landholder with support vegetation (aim 25m buffer and 4 rows of vegetation) along wa- 2000 plants^ quately excluded. Plants survival rate ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. terway. Works include 8km fencing and 44,000 plants. of 80% at two years. Weeds con- of works. trolled within fenced area for first three years.

Undertake maintenance on all new plantings to control weeds 12km X X X Weeds controlled within fenced area Improvement of one in the measure- Minimal Landholder with support for first three years. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

# length includes both sides of waterway. i.e a 1km reach will have a fencing requirement of 2km. Also assumes no fencing present and therefore 1 assumes $5/m for materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process figures and costs presented provide the worse possible scenario. 2 assumes $1000/ha * assumes a average buffer width of 25 meters. 3 assumes 1000/site ^ Plants include a mix of 1/3 overstorey and 2/3 understorey 4 planting assumes $2.50/plant for materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process. also assumes $5/m for fencing materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process Sa D n B dy A B C U # # reek R O r G o R

E w

K # n R C O k O H A e C e i D # r l A l # C E ## e C P e r # r e T # y e rr k ## he C # # # MO YREISK N ORTH ROA D D

A D

O A

R O

## R N

N ## S A #E

T M # T # A H # # O R C ## E # E ##

# C H # # A ## I N # D ## R # # O A ## O A

D R ## ## # R # E # ## T A MA # L RYBO S ROUGH-ST ARNAUD R ## ## OAD # ## # # MOYREISK # # Redbank Creek # EVA ## NS ROAD # #

A #GRA A N O TS ROAD # v R o ### # 6

c # 1 R

E h T R # c A

a L i v

S e e ### ### r R

SO UTH ROAD

O ##

L L ## MARYBOR U OUGH NATTE -ST ARNAU G D RO ## AD D ## OA G TES R ## YALLOCK COA ## N

L # ## MO ON T AMBEL-NATTE # # YALLOCK ROAD H ## # R # E #

I # ## N Legend R

A D Waterway Nutrient Action Plan Priority Segment Reach Vegetation Condition # Good ## Marginal ## Poor # CAP Nominated Reaches Priority Areas

A Area of High Value Vegetation to be Fenced D Linkage Areas of Fencing and Revegetation

Erossion Control Investigation Infrastructure Main Road - Unsealed Minor Road - Urban A Management Unit Boundary CAMS DATA

# Area of effective pest animal control (ha) # Area of perennial pasture (ha) # Area of remnant enhanced (ha) WILLI AMS ROAD # Area of remnant protected (ha) # B Area of salinity discharge control (ha) TANWOOD # Area of salinity recharge control (ha) # Area of wetland protected or enhanced (ha) S UN RA # Area protected by fencing (ha) YS IA H C # Area protected by stock containment construction (ha) PUNTO IG N ROAD HW A # Y RATHSCAR Area re-vegetated (ha) reek # In-stream or gully erosion control site (no) D in C WEST A unta D o O M D # A R Length of gully stabilised (km)

O IN

R A H # Length of stream protected or enhanced (km) S C N E I E # Off stream watering point established (no) P R R H T U E Area of effective weed control (ha) T

m . Area of remnant enhanced (ha)

u J Area of remnant protected (ha)

1 Area of salinity recharge control (ha) P

c E a R

e C Area protected by fencing (ha)

_ Y 1 D

9 A Area re-vegetated (ha)

2 k L ee

3 r E C 0 rs le 0 R #idd Area using improved irrigation management (ha) 6 F O

\ A

I D Length of gully stabilised (km)

c r HAM A ER ROA

\ D Length of stream improvement (km)

S I FIGURE

l e REACH 7 - AVOCA RIVER

l h North Central Catchment Management Authority I

: n DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 55

o i Upper Avoca CAP

a c 0295 590 1,180 1,770 2,360

Upper Avoca Catchment, Victoria 3

F Metres

PROJECT ID M60032901 DATE DRAWN 03 July 2007 DRAWN BY EJW LAST MODIFIED EJW 16 Nov 2007 APPROVED Action Plan - REACH 8

Current Condition: Priority Actions The indigenous vegetation of Reach 8 is a fragmented subset of the larger agriculturally dominated vegetation community. This means the existing remnants have a high edge to volume ratio allowing greater light and wind penetration Action Very High High Med Low creating conditions that favour exotic grasses and a poor environment for the establishment of seed from indigenous species. Along the reach the riparian buffer ranges from good condition with a diversity of over and under storey spe- Exclude stock from all areas of nominated high X cies to degraded which is significantly compromised by weeds and stock access. The areas of ‘good’ vegetation con- priority remnant vegetation. dition are the target for works in this 5 year plan and generally these areas have reasonably intact over and under storey community but are in slow decline due to grazing pressure and ongoing weed invasion. These areas of ‘good’ Eradicate weeds and vermin for all areas of X condition are scattered along the length of Reach 8 and not well connected. nominated high priority remnant vegetation.

Install off stream watering for all areas of nomi- X Proposed Condition: nated high priority remnant vegetation.

The proposed condition of Reach 8 involves the exclusion of all stock through repair of existing fencing, and construc- Revegetate priority areas to link areas of nomi- X tion of new fences. It is intended that a 25m buffer strip is created along the length of the waterway that is identified nated high value vegetation. as having ‘good’ vegetation condition. Areas of ‘good’ vegetation will be joined through linking plantations where appropriate to improve longitudinal connectivity. Weeds and vermin will be well controlled to allow the regeneration of robust over, middle and understorey species. Ground storey species may or may not establish depending on the extent of invasive grasses. With the exclusion of stock the instream and ephemeral environment should improve in species diversity and density.

5 year action plan

Extent Year Output Target for action Outcome Target for reach Cost of activity Responsibility

Where no fencing exists, construct fences to exclude stock in 7.3 km# X X X Fences adequately exclude stock 1 Improvement of one in the measure- $36,5001 Landholder with support priority areas of high value vegetation. year after construction. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

Undertake weed and vermin control in all areas fenced off. 2ha* X X X All significant weed species have Improvement of one in the measure- $2,0002 Landholder with support been eradicated after three years. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

Install off stream watering where required at areas fenced off and 20 sites X X X Off stream watering installed and op- Improvement of one in the measure- $20,0003 Landholder with support if located in nominated priority areas. erational. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works. Fence and revegetate priority areas to link areas of high value 12km# X X X Fencing installed and stock ade- Improvement of one in the measure- $73,9914 Landholder with support vegetation (aim 25m buffer and 4 rows of vegetation) along wa- 12,000 quately excluded. Plants survival rate ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. terway. Works include 12km fencing and 12,000 plants. plants^ of 80% at two years. Weeds con- of works. trolled within fenced area for first three years.

Undertake maintenance on all new plantings to control weeds. 12km X X X Weeds controlled within fenced area Improvement of one in the measure- $10,000 Landholder with support for first three years. ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI. of works.

# length includes both sides of waterway. i.e a 1km reach will have a fencing requirement of 2km. Also assumes no fencing present and therefore 1 assumes $5/m for materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant proceses figures and costs presented provide the worse possible scenario. 2 assumes $1000/ha * assumes a average buffer width of 25 meters. 3 assumes 1000/site ^ plants include a mix of 1/3 overstorey and 2/3 understorey 4 planting assumes $2.50/plant for materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process. also assumes $5/m for fencing materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process D # A O

HA N MER R D OAD I

A D G

O A

I k R e O re C H R s K dler d E Fi PE E RCY E DALE ROAD N R A

L C

S L S

D N R D

C E O A O O L S R A D R C H D E S H I D U F R B N E O A M A O D H

ek re C o w T er b um N AVOCA P YR EN EE S HIG A HW AY

S U N R k A e Y re S C IA e H n IG O B H r W e A b Y m u N C

D AD T RO FLA BOX

r CAMPLOUGH e

v i

k R

a e

r c A

V o C

O v

d C

A r

f - G r

R e

E h

t E

u N

H R

I L

L D

C A

R O

E R

S K

Y E R R

O R J

O A A

L D B

R Legend O

F A AMPHITHEATRE D Waterway Nutrient Action Plan Priority Segment Reach Vegetation Condition

k I e M GR R P E e IF E Good r L E NH E Y IL C R L G A S MarginalCR e N E r R E t G K E O R a Poor O R A A e O D A D h D it h CAP Nominated Reaches Priority Areas p m ## A A Area of High Value Vegetation to be Fenced D Linkage Areas of Fencing and Revegetation

H Erossion Control Investigation ROSYTH Infrastructure Main Road - Unsealed Minor Road - Urban Management Unit Boundary CAMS DATA k e e r # Area of effective pest animal control (ha) C d # r Area of perennial pasture (ha) fo r # Area of remnant enhanced (ha) k e e h F re t I C u S e H # Area of remnant protected (ha) gi R E lo LE R n X S # Area of salinity discharge control (ha) le T G ON R - O D A R A # Area of salinity recharge control (ha) A AR D O A T R R # Area of wetland protected or enhanced (ha) OA E D

T # Area protected by fencing (ha)

H # Area protected by stock containment construction (ha) T I

P # Area re-vegetated (ha)

M A # In-stream or gully erosion control site (no) # Length of gully stabilised (km) # Length of stream protected or enhanced (km) # Off stream watering point established (no) ROAD ARCH T LON Area of effective weed control (ha) d OUN x M

m . Area of remnant enhanced (ha)

u J Area of remnant protected (ha)

1 Area of salinity recharge control (ha)

a e Area protected by fencing (ha)

9 Area re-vegetated (ha)

0 Area using improved irrigation management (ha)

I Length of gully stabilised (km)

\ Length of stream improvement (km)

1 BIG 0 \ HIL 9 L

S I FIGURE

l e REACH 8 - AVOCA RIVER

l h North Central Catchment Management Authority

\ I

o i Upper Avoca CAP DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 55

L 0360 720 1,440 2,160 2,880 Upper Avoca Catchment, Victoria 4

F Metres

PROJECT ID M60032901 DATE DRAWN 03 July 2007 DRAWN BY EJW LAST MODIFIED EJW 16 Nov 2007 APPROVED Action Plan - REACH 16 (HOMEBUSH CREEK) Current Condition: Reach 16 has vegetation ranging from marginal to very poor and in many areas has no waterway vegetation at all. The Priority Actions surrounding land is predominantly cleared and is an ongoing source of sediment and nutrients into the waterway. Two areas of gully erosion have been identified that appear to be active and would contribute sediment to Homebush Creek Action Very High High Med Low and ultimately the Avoca River. The major focus for the next five years is to address the obvious areas of erosion and sediment generation. Initial investigation to determine if any detailed X engineering design work is required. Exclude stock for all areas nominated for erosion X Proposed Condition: control works.

Undertake revegetation works to help stabilise the X The proposed condition of Reach 16 for the next 5 years involves the exclusion of stock from areas that have ongoing tributary. erosion issues. These areas will be further stabilised through the installation of rock chutes (where appropriate) and revegetation activities. The combination of revegetation and natural recruitment of grasses to the site will result in a If required initiate functional design to install X stable systems that no longer contributes sediment to Homebush Creek, and in turn the Avoca River. grade control structures.

The majority of the watercourse of Homebush Creek will largely remain in the same condition but may continue to de- Ensure protection of fish refuge area (water hole) X cline through ongoing stock access. Fencing and revegetation activities for this creek may be considered in future ac- in nominated areas within this reach tion plans when the higher priority actions are completed.

5 year action plan

Extent Year Output Target for action Outcome Target for reach Cost of activity Responsibility

Action 1 2 3 4 5 Undertake initial investigation to determine the cause and extent of N/A X An initial understanding of the system As per output. $3000 NCCMA/DPI. erosion. This would then identify if grade control structures are and suite of treatment measures re- required and further design work can be initiated. quired. If grade control structures are required then initiate functional de- TBD# X Grade control structures designed and Grade control structures stable after 2 TBD# NCCMA/DPI. sign and construction. constructed. normal years of flow events.

Where no fencing exists, construct fences to exclude stock from all TBD# X X X Adequate fencing completed to effec- With exclusion of stock pugging and TBD# Landholder with support sites of active erosion. tively exclude stock. stock trafficking are eliminated to re- from NCCMA/DPI. duce erosion and allow the growth of vegetation. Revegetate area with appropriate species. (note: low lying land TBD# X X X Plants survival rate of 80% at two Plants established and a sustainable TBD# Landholder with support may be subject to elevated salinity levels) years. Weeds controlled within self recruiting system is evident within from NCCMA/DPI. fenced area for first three years. 5 years.

Undertake maintenance on all new plantings to control weeds 12km X X Weeds controlled within fenced area Improvement of 1 in score of ISC Minimal Landholder with support X for first three years. Physical Form subindex in 10 years. from NCCMA/DPI.

Undertake inspection of the fish refuge area’s adjacent to Natte X An understanding of the site and im- As per output. Minimal NCCMA/DPI in conjunction Yalklock football ground, from Emu Road bridge to 2 km down- proved protection and enhancement if with local angling club. stream and around Archdale Bridge with local angling clubs. Dis- required. cuss the need for any fencing and revegetation activities, and to ensure no inappropriate amounts of water is being extracted from these specific deep pool locations.

# needs site assessment to determine extent of issue

# MO YREISK NO RTH ROAD

R k S e #E re T # C ## A ree O T C ry er ARCHDALE ## Ch ## JUNCTION

T k H # e R D

A e

E r E O

C R

## C l H l R A i E I H T N

A R n L O S w A D o r # B # #

# EVA ## NS ROAD # #

A A

v # O o

R 6

GR c ANT 1 S R

R OAD a

T R

i a L v

e S e B r R

S OUTH ROAD

O ##

Y L NATTE L ## MARYBOR U OUGH -ST ARNAU G D RO ## AD YALLOCK G ## A ## N D O OA L R CK LO YAL TTE # ## -NA L T BE AM H N R OO # M E # E

I # ## N

Legend Waterway Nutrient Action Plan Priority Segment Reach Vegetation Condition

Good Marginal Poor CAP Nominated Reaches Priority Areas

A Area of High Value Vegetation to be Fenced D Linkage Areas of Fencing and Revegetation

Erossion Control Investigation Infrastructure Main Road - Unsealed D

A O Minor Road - Urban R

N I Management Unit Boundary A

H k

C e

E e CAMS DATA r

E C R

H # Area of effective pest animal control (ha) in RATHSCAR T a t # n WEST Area of perennial pasture (ha) u o # Area of remnant enhanced (ha) M # Area of remnant protected (ha) # Area of salinity discharge control (ha)

S # Area of salinity recharge control (ha) U LOWER N R A # Y HOMEBUSH Area of wetland protected or enhanced (ha) S IA H # Area protected by fencing (ha) IG H W A # Area protected by stock containment construction (ha) Y # Area re-vegetated (ha) # In-stream or gully erosion control site (no)

D # reek A Length of gully stabilised (km) lers C O #d R Fid # Length of stream protected or enhanced (km)

D E # Off stream watering point established (no)

A R D A O C

R O Area of effective weed control (ha) S d R x S R

m E E N

. I Area of remnant enhanced (ha) L

7 N

0 G A l D

u L G D

J I I Area of remnant protected (ha) 4 S

H F 0 N _ P

0 E RCYDAL O 1 E ROAD S Area of salinity recharge control (ha)

c R a E

e D Area protected by fencing (ha)

_ N

1 A

0 D

9 A Area re-vegetated (ha) 2 N O 3 umb R 0 e r Tw H 0 o C RIVERSDALE S Area using improved irrigation management (ha) 6 r eek U

\ B E

S I M Length of gully stabilised (km)

G O

r H

\ Length of stream improvement (km)

S I FIGURE

l e REACH 16 - HOMEBUSH CREEK

l h North Central Catchment Management Authority I

o DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 55 i Upper Avoca CAP

t a 0350 700 1,400 2,100 2,800

Upper Avoca Catchment, Victoria 5

l i Metres

PROJECT ID M60032901 DATE DRAWN 03 July 2007 DRAWN BY EJW LAST MODIFIED EJW 16 Nov 2007 APPROVED Action Plan - REACH 13 (FENTONS CREEK) Current Condition: Reach 13 is characterised by marginal to poor remnant riparian vegetation and degraded waterway values. Along the Priority Actions reach the riparian buffer ranges from poor condition to no buffer at all. The surrounding land is predominantly cleared and is an ongoing source of sediment and nutrients into the waterway . On the eastern side of the waterway there is Action Very High High Med Low an unnamed tributary that displays substantial erosion and is most likely a major contributor of sediment to this system. The areas of erosion and sediment generation will be the major focus for the next five years. Initial investigation to determine if any detailed X engineering design work is required.

Exclude stock for all areas nominated for erosion X Proposed Condition: control works. The proposed condition of Reach 13 for the next 5 years involves the exclusion of stock from areas that have ongoing If required initiate functional design to install X erosion issues. These areas will be further stabilised through the installation of rock chutes (where appropriate) and grade control structures. revegetation activities. The combination of revegetation and natural recruitment of grasses to the site will result in a stable systems that no longer contributes sediment to Fenton’s Creek, and in turn the Avoca River. Undertake revegetation works to help stabilise the X tributary. The majority of the watercourse of Fentons Creek will largely remain in the same condition but may continue to decline Consider fencing and revegetating Fentons Creek X through ongoing stock access. It is however proposed to capitalise on the works undertaken to manage erosion by from the confluence with the eroded tributary to fencing and revegetating Fentons Creek from the confluence of the Avoca and Fentons and confluence of Avoca and the confluence with the Avoca River. tributary displaying the erosion issue. This action largely provides some connectivity to the vegetation established for erosion control and the vegetation on the Avoca River.

5 year action plan

Extent Year Output Target for action Outcome Target for reach Cost of activity Responsibility

Action 1 2 3 4 5 Undertake initial investigation to determine the cause and extent of N/A X An initial understanding of the system As per Output $3000 NCCMA/DPI erosion. This would identify the need for any grade control struc- and suite of treatment measures re- tures and further design work can be initiated. quired. If grade control structures are required then initiate functional de- TBD# X Grade control structures designed and Grade control structures stable after 2 TBD# NCCMA/DPI sign and construction. constructed. normal years of flow events

Where no fencing exists, construct fences to exclude stock from all TBD# X X X Adequate fencing completed to effec- With stock pugging and stock traffick- TBD# Landholder with support sites of active erosion. Initial investigation can determine appropri- tively exclude stock. ing eliminated, growth of vegetation from NCCMA/DPI ate extent of fencing and revegetation activities. (especially grasses) will be prolific.

Revegetate area with appropriate species. (note: low lying land TBD# X X X Plants survival rate of 80% at two Plants established and a sustainable TBD# Landholder with support may be subject to elevated salinity levels) years. Weeds controlled within self recruiting system is evident within from NCCMA/DPI fenced area for first three years. 5 years. Consider fencing and revegetating Fenton’s Creek from the conflu- 5km* X X Fencing installed and stock ade- Improvement of one in the measure- $40,0001 Landholder with support ence with the Avoca River and the confluence with the tributary quately excluded. Plants survival rate ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI associated with the erosion works. (Aim for a 15m buffer and 3 of 80% at two years. Weeds con- of works rows of vegetation). trolled within fenced area for first three This is a lower priority action and should only be pursued after the years. major sediment sources within the sub-catchment are effectively managed. # # Undertake weed and vermin control in all areas fenced off in TBD X X X X X All significant weed species have As per Output TBD Landholder with support above actions. been eradicated after three years. from NCCMA/DPI

FENTONS CREEK

Legend Waterway Nutrient Action Plan Priority Segment Reach Vegetation Condition

Good Marginal Poor CAP Nominated Reaches Priority Areas

A Area of High Value Vegetation to be Fenced D Linkage Areas of Fencing and Revegetation

Erossion Control Investigation Infrastructure Main Road - Unsealed Minor Road - Urban Management Unit Boundary B CAMS DATA

# Area of effective pest animal control (ha) # Area of perennial pasture (ha) # Area of remnant enhanced (ha) # Area of remnant protected (ha) # Area of salinity discharge control (ha) # Area of salinity recharge control (ha) # Area of wetland protected or enhanced (ha) A vo # Area protected by fencing (ha) ca R # i Area protected by stock containment construction (ha) ve r # Area re-vegetated (ha) # In-stream or gully erosion control site (no) # Length of gully stabilised (km) LOGAN # Length of stream protected or enhanced (km)

V # Off stream watering point established (no)

A N Area of effective weed control (ha) R

N Area of remnant enhanced (ha)

l A

J N Area of remnant protected (ha)

OA Area of salinity recharge control (ha)

D Area protected by fencing (ha)

9 Area re-vegetated (ha)

0 Area using improved irrigation management (ha)

I Length of gully stabilised (km)

\ Length of stream improvement (km)

S I FIGURE

l e REACH 13 - FENTONS CREEK

l h North Central Catchment Management Authority I

: n DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 55

o i Upper Avoca CAP

a c 0165 330 660 990 1,320

L Upper Avoca Catchment, Victoria 6

F Metres

PROJECT ID M60032901 DATE DRAWN 03 July 2007 DRAWN BY EJW LAST MODIFIED EJW 16 Nov 2007 APPROVED Action Plan - REACH 17 (MOUNTAIN CREEK) Current Condition: Reach 17 has marginal to very poor riparian vegetation and in many areas has no vegetation at all. The surrounding Priority Actions land is predominantly cleared and is an ongoing source of sediment and nutrients into the waterway. One area of gully erosion has been identified that appears to be active and would contribute sediment to Mountain Creek and ultimately Action Very High High Med Low the Avoca River. The major focus for the next five years is to address the obvious areas of erosion and sediment generation. Initial investigation to determine if any detailed X engineering design work is required. Exclude stock for all areas nominated for erosion X Proposed Condition: control works.

Undertake revegetation works to help stabilise the X The proposed condition of Reach 17 for the next 5 years involves the exclusion of stock from areas that have ongoing tributary. erosion issues. These areas will be further stabilised through the installation of rock chutes (where appropriate) and revegetation activities. The combination of revegetation and natural recruitment of grasses to the site will result in a If required initiate functional design to install X stable systems that no longer contributes sediment to Homebush Creek, and in turn the Avoca River. grade control structures.

The majority of the watercourse of Homebush Creek will largely remain in the same condition but may continue to decline through ongoing stock access. Fencing and revegetation activities for this creek may be considered in future action plans when the higher priority actions are completed.

5 year action plan

Extent Year Output Target for action Outcome Target for reach Cost of activity Responsibility

Action 1 2 3 4 5 Undertake initial investigation to determine the cause and extent of N/A X An initial understanding of the system As per Output $3000 NCCMA/DPI erosion. This would then identify if grade control structures are and suite of treatment measures re- required and further design work can be initiated. quired. If grade control structures are required then initiate functional de- TBD# X Grade control structures designed and Grade control structures stable after 2 TBD# NCCMA/DPI sign and construction. constructed normal years of flow events

Where no fencing exists, construct fences to exclude stock from all TBD# X X X Adequate fencing completed to effec- With exclusion of stock pugging and TBD# Landholder with support sites of active erosion. tively exclude stock stock trafficking are eliminated to re- from NCCMA/DPI duce erosion and allow the growth of vegetation Revegetate area with appropriate species. (note: low lying land TBD# X X X Plants survival rate of 80% at two Plants established and a sustainable TBD# Landholder with support may be subject to elevated salinity levels) years. Weeds controlled within self recruiting system is evident within from NCCMA/DPI fenced area for first three years 5 years.

Undertake maintenance on all new plantings to control weeds TBD# X X Weeds controlled within fenced area Improvement of 1 in score of ISC TBD# Landholder with support X for first three years Physical Form subindex in 10 years from NCCMA/DPI

# needs site assessment to determine extent of issue

D REDBAN#K-BARKLY RO A AD # # O ##

D R

A REDBANK E ROAD N O ACECOURS R A M W R AR L Y ## BO I RO D UGH I - S ST A L H R A NAUD R D M ## OAD O W

D M A ## G O R I R ATES ## R P O ## NATTE YALLOCK ROAD C Y - L A REDBANK

O G # ##

A ARY ROAD N BOUND T D D O # H L A # # R O ## # E #

R E

K ## C A S H v I o E A

I c R # ## N a Y R R O O i M v A e AD D r O R CK C LO E AL N Y T E R TT E A N R L- O BE # A AM D N ## O O M ## COLE MAN ROAD #

r MO R R U NTAIN e CRE E EK S ROA A v D E i

E R

D a

MOONAMBEL G N c

U o

TO E R B MEYS ROA v D M CUDM A

k ORE ROAD

e e D

D r

A C O O STA R W R g EL L-A E o VOC G A P RO TANWOOD D A N D O HA

A RRIS d O H NS B l ACK M R i OAD

E W

R M R O

A O D

D N A W A O - A M R L O B D WILLIA E E MS R ROA L O D B

S B O M A

R C W A K N E

N A T R T O O RATHSCAR E A O L D

O WEST

P S UN RA YS IA PUNT H ON ROAD IG HW AY

D A ek O re D n C R A tai un D O o S M A R N

O N A I

R A M H

S E C L N E Avoca River I T E P S R

R A H AD T U RO C ANG T Legend ENM RR BUCKN -WA ALL ROAD FTY Waterway NLO GLE Nutrient Action Plan Priority Segment Reach Vegetation Condition WARRENMANG Good Marginal # D A Poor

S D

HAMER N CAP Nominated ReachesA Priority Areas ROAD I O G R D G

I A E

H Area of High Value Vegetation to be Fenced A O N A k R e L re C K rs S le LinkageE Areas of Fencing and Revegetation d PERC D N id YDAL E F E ROAD O R S C R

Erossion Control InvestigationE S D R N E A PERCYDALE L InfrastructureD

k D e I re F C Main Road - Unsealed wo r T be Minor Road - Urban um N Management Unit Boundary CAMS DATA

# Area of effective pest animal control (ha) # Area of perennial pasture (ha) # Area of remnant enhanced (ha) # Area of remnant protected (ha) # Area of salinity discharge control (ha) # Area of salinity recharge control (ha) # Area of wetland protected or enhanced (ha) # Area protected by fencing (ha) # Area protected by stock containment construction (ha) er # Area re-vegetated (ha) a Riv Avoc # In-stream or gully erosion control site (no) # Length of gully stabilised (km) # Length of stream protected or enhanced (km) # Off stream watering point established (no) k F e ORDS ROAD re

d Area of effective weed control (ha) x C m e . n 7 Area of remnant enhanced (ha)

0 l O u r J e 4 b Area of remnant protected (ha)

_ m

0 u 1 N River h Area of salinity recharge Acontrolvoca (ha)

R Area protected by fencing (ha)

9 Area re-vegetated (ha)

6 Area using improved irrigation management (ha)

S I Length of gully stabilised (km)

A \ Length of stream improvement (km)

S I FIGURE

l e REACH 17 - MOUNTAIN CREEK

l h North Central Catchment Management Authority

\ I

o i Upper Avoca CAP DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 55

o 0305 610 1,220 1,830 2,440

Upper Avoca Catchment, Victoria 7

F Metres

PROJECT ID M60032901 DATE DRAWN 03 July 2007 DRAWN BY EJW LAST MODIFIED EJW 16 Nov 2007 APPROVED Action Plan - REACH 10 (CAMPBELL CREEK) Current Condition: Reach 10 is characterised by some areas of good remnant riparian vegetation but is still overall a degraded waterway Priority Actions environment. Along this reach the riparian buffer ranges from moderate condition to no buffer at all. The surrounding land is predominantly cleared and is an ongoing source of sediment and nutrients into the waterway. In parts of the Action Very High High Med Low upper catchment erosion appears to be active and would contribute sediment to Campbell Creek and ultimately the Avoca River. There are two areas of riparian vegetation considered to contain good vegetation values within this Initial investigation to determine if any detailed X reach. The major focus for the next five years is to address the obvious areas of erosion and sediment generation as engineering design work is required to control well as enhancing and protecting the large reach of good vegetation. erosion within area marked ‘Erosion Control In- vestigation’ on attached map.

If required initiate functional design to install X grade control structures Proposed Condition: Exclude stock for all areas nominated for erosion X All stock will be excluded from areas that have ongoing erosion issues. These areas will be further stabilised through control works. the installation of rock chutes (where appropriate) and revegetation activities. The combination of revegetation and natural recruitment of grasses to the site will result in a stable systems that no longer contributes sediment to Campbell Undertake revegetation works to help stabilise the X Creek, and in turn the Avoca River. tributary displaying active erosion

The majority of the watercourse of Campbell Creek will largely remain in the same condition but within the nominated Undertake complimentary revegetation works X area of high value vegetation, the exclusion of all stock and some complimentary planting will create a buffer strip of a along high value parts of Reach 10. minimum of 15 m. Weeds and vermin will be well controlled to allow the regeneration of robust over, middle and understorey species. Ground storey species are unlikely to establish but with the exclusion of stock, the instream and Exclude stock from areas nominated areas for X ephemeral environment should improve in species diversity and density within this reach. waterway fencing and revegetation

5 year action plan

Extent Year Output Target for action Outcome Target for reach Cost of activity Responsibility

Action 1 2 3 4 5 Undertake initial investigation to determine the cause and extent of N/A X An initial understanding of the system As per output. $3000 NCCMA/DPI erosion. This would then identify if grade control structures are and suite of treatment measures re- required and further design work can be initiated. quired.

If grade control structures are required then initiate functional de- TBD# X Grade control structures designed and Grade control structures stable after 2 TBD# NCCMA/DPI sign and construction. constructed. normal years of flow events.

Where no fencing exists, construct fences to exclude stock from all TBD# X X X Adequate fencing completed to effec- With stock pugging and stock traffick- TBD# Landholder with support sites of active erosion. tively exclude stock. ing eliminated, growth of vegetation from NCCMA/DPI (especially grasses) will be prolific.

Fence and revegetate along area of good vegetation condition 7km* X X X Fencing installed and stock ade- Improvement of one in the measure- $35,0001 Landholder with support (Aim for a 15 m buffer and 3 rows of vegetation) along waterway. 5000 plants^ quately excluded. Plants survival rate ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI Works include 7 km fencing and 5000 plants of 80% at two years. Weeds con- of works trolled within fenced area for first three years

Undertake maintenance on all new plantings to control weeds TBD X X Weeds controlled within fenced area Improvement of one in the measure- TBD# Landholder with support X for first three years ment of riparian condition within area from NCCMA/DPI of works

# needs site assessment to determine extent of issue 1 Planting assumes $2.50/plant for materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process. * length includes both sides of waterway. i.e a 1km reach will have a fencing requirement of 2km Also assumes $5/m for fencing materials and labour provided by landholder as part of a devolved grant process ^ plants include a mix of 1/3 overstorey and 2/3 understorey. Area is not a full buffer strip planting and it is expected that an existing seed source will to some degree contribute to natural regeneration once the site is fenced off. Planting should be opportunistic where required and plant num- bers are an estimate only.

D R A O E R L E O MCCAH K P ON R ROAD U O R

D E A

O R R RN A BU W ER O D G ED W HE WITT ROAD FREEM AN ROAD

K E

D R A O O A R ) D N a R ( U k # B R e E e D r D

D C A E

O W n R a D l L l T i O f S

h A t

E a

r D R t

A A FOR S D R OAD O

N G

STO CK HA M B RID S G L E A RO N AD T Y R O A STOCK D HAM BRI DGE ROAD A er k iv e R e a r oc M C v C A N A D # L A # L M Y O

A R R

# O N # A R D A L O

l # L T

A C # D e C A O b O K R

p R N R P W O m

# O A a R D B C MCN ALLY ROAD

# Y WA IGH A H ER St A IMM rnau W Legend d C D reek A O

R Waterway # E L Nutrient Action Plan Priority Segment O

C KOOREH O D

G A Reach Vegetation Condition

R T Good

O O

P A

Marginal D E

L Poor

G CAP Nominated Reaches Priority Areas MO ORE ROAD Area of High Value Vegetation to be Fenced D A

R D Linkage Areas of Fencing and Revegetation

# O C Erossion Control Investigation COLLARY ROAD D S

A Infrastructure C A O R R

A Main Road - Unsealed T D P D # A A O O O R P O W O # HEELER Minor Road - Urban R ROA R E D E # E E T D U S N # A R L R O Management Unit Boundary A O O F G N A # R E

D L

CAMSE DATA D N

A D ## O A N # ## R V H SCIL # A Area of effective pest animal control (ha) k E INI ROA MALE R R D W OAD e # O # e O # Area of perennial pasture (ha) r ## K C D e O # Area of remnant enhanced (ha) e # # B H o N T # o Area of remnant protected (ha) p R a CARAPOOEE O r # A # a D Area of salinity discharge control (ha) C# S t # r Area of salinity recharge control (ha) # a

t h # Area of wetland protected or enhanced (ha) f

i l

l a # Area protected by fencing (ha) n

C # Area protected by stock containment construction (ha) r

## e e # Area re-vegetated (ha) k # In-stream or gully erosion control site (no) A RMAN R OAD # Length of gully stabilised (km) # # Length of stream protected or enhanced (km) # # Off stream watering point established (no) Area of effective weed control (ha) M

d x INALDI ROA A R m R AD . Area of remnantMIL enhancedL RO (ha) 7 C

0 l H S

T J # M Area of remnant protected (ha) U

4 E

A _ N

0 R

T D 1 Area of salinity recharge control (ha)

T h # R A

M a O O

I R Area protected by fencing (ha) A L

L _ D

1 I -

9 Area re-vegetated (ha) O

2 H

# G

0 Area using improved irrigation management (ha)

M \ ADINO RO # R S AD I # Length of gully stabilised (km) O

A ##

\ Length of stream improvement (km)

S I FIGURE

l e REACH 10 - CAMPBELL CREEK

l h North Central Catchment Management Authority

\ I

o i Upper Avoca CAP DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 55

a c 0260 520 1,040 1,560 2,080

Upper Avoca Catchment, Victoria 8

F Metres

PROJECT ID M60032901 DATE DRAWN 03 July 2007 DRAWN BY EJW LAST MODIFIED EJW 16 Nov 2007 APPROVED #

Legend Waterway Nutrient Action Plan Priority Segment Reach Vegetation Condition

Good Marginal Poor CAP Nominated Reaches Priority Areas ## A Area of High Value Vegetation to be Fenced D Linkage Areas of Fencing and Revegetation

# Erossion Control# Investigation ## # Infrastructure ## Main Road - Unsealed # Minor Road - Urban ## ###Management Unit Boundary # CAMS DATA # # # Area of effective pest animal control (ha) # Area of perennial pasture (ha) # ## Area of remnant enhanced (ha) ## A # Area# of remnant protected (ha) # Area of salinity discharge control (ha) # Area of salinity recharge control (ha) # Area of wetland protected or enhanced (ha) # Area protected by fencing (ha) # # Area protected by stock containment construction (ha) # Area re-vegetated (ha) # In-stream or gully erosion control site (no) # Length of gully stabilised (km) # Length of stream protected or enhanced (km) # Off stream watering point established (no) Area of effective weed control (ha)

d x #

m . Area of remnant enhanced (ha)

u J Area of remnant protected (ha)

1 Area of salinity recharge control (ha)

a e Area protected by fencing (ha)

9 Area re-vegetated (ha)

0 # Area using improved irrigation management (ha)

6 #

I Length of gully stabilised (km)

G #

A \ # Length of stream improvement (km)

S I FIGURE

l e TARPAULIN CREEK

l h North Central Catchment Management Authority

\ I

o i Upper Avoca CAP DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 55

o 0225 450 900 1,350 1,800

Upper Avoca Catchment, Victoria 9

F Metres

PROJECT ID M60032901 DATE DRAWN 03 July 2007 DRAWN BY EJW LAST MODIFIED EJW 16 Nov 2007 APPROVED 9 Monitoring success

The actions proposed in this CAP are focused on achieving outputs that over time will contribute to outcomes of catchment change. The timeframe for this transition is not years, but often decades and any monitoring program needs to consider the path of outputs (actions) to outcomes. Tables 6, 7 and 8 describe the key actions and the target changes in the system over time.

Table 6. Target outcomes from stock exclusion fencing (includes weed & vermin control)

Year

Physical measure 1 3 5 10 20 Stock are excluded (controlled well managed grazing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes may also be appropriate) Presence of non ground storey weeds (means all weeds < 15% < 10% < 5% < 5% < 5% of under, mid and over storey) Natural regeneration of indigenous species No Yes Yes Yes Yes Diversity of original EVC recruiting (under, mid and over 0% 10% 30% 60% 80% storey only)

Table 7. Target outcomes from revegetation (includes weed & vermin control)

Year

Physical measure 1 8 16 24 32 Stock are excluded controlled well managed grazing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes may also be appropriate) Presence of non ground storey weeds (means all weeds < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% of under, mid and over storey) Mid and understorey % of planting reflect EVC structure Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Plant survival (planting of tubestock or cells) 80% 70% 70% 50% 50% Percent of woody life form (native trees and shrubs) – regenerating and recruiting i.e. at 8 years 15% of the species planted in the revegetation should be actively 0% 15% 30% 50% 90% seeding and regenerating. By time the vegetation is 32 years old it is expected that around 90% of the species should display signs of regeneration.

Table 8. Target outcomes from erosion control

Year

Physical measure 1 2 3 5 10 Stock are excluded Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Grade control structures stable N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Grasses (native & exotic) have strongly recruited No Yes Yes Yes Yes No further signs of erosion N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Plant survival (planting of tubestock or cells) 80% 70% 70% 70% 70%

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 45 9.1 Monitoring program

The monitoring program is designed to be simplistic and not complicated. The program is effectively a series of site audits to assess the works against the expected path of the transition of outputs to outcomes. It is suggested the one of the most important outcomes of this monitoring program is simply to facilitate the ongoing communication and relationship between the CMA and landholders.

The program proposes only a small number of sites that will inform the need for any further and more detailed assessment. For instance, if the small sample indicates a substantial deviation from the expectations presented in Tables 6, 7 and 8, then it is suggested a greater level of effort is invested to determine if the problems are more widespread. However, if the small sample indicates a strong correlation with the expected quality, then there should be confidence that the entire works program is generally tracking well.

Monitoring programs should also be thought of as an opportunity to further develop a client relationship with the landholders. The monitoring may principally inform the CMA regarding any issues in the quality of the works, but the ongoing interest in the landholder’s achievements should never be underestimated. The requirements of the program do increase as the number of landholders increases. This is geared to increasing the number of active relationships over the 5 years.

Table 9 summarises the monitoring requirements for the five years of the plans implementation.

Table 9. Monitoring Program

Works type Monitoring Fencing of areas of high value vegetation Assess 10% of all works sites on an annual basis Fencing and revegetation activities Assess 10% of all works sites on an annual basis Erosion control activities Assess 10% of all works sites on an annual basis

This monitoring program rightly focuses on assessing the success of actions in the catchment and along the waterway; however the fundamental underlining principles of the CAP and the prioritisation process in the NCRHS is to protect and enhance the internationally important Kerang Wetlands and Avoca Mashes. Achieving this outcome is the ultimate measure of success. Monitoring and measuring the health of the Kerang Wetlands and Avoca Mashes is beyond the scope of this CAP, however it should be a high priority action to be coordinated between the NCCMA, DSE and DPI.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 46 10 Data gaps

To prepare this CAP, extensive use of existing reports concerning natural resource management and condition of the Upper Avoca catchment was made. It should be noted that a number of other sources of information concerning the Upper Avoca catchment exist, but were not utilised for the CAP as some reports were not available. The Avoca Whole-of-Catchment Plan 2000–2002 (NCCMA, 2000a) integrates all major strategies relevant to the catchment to produce a prioritised works program.

The review of literature and information required to prepare this CAP reveals certain data gaps relevant to the Upper Avoca catchment (and the Avoca River catchment as a whole). This particularly applies to the terrestrial ecology and biodiversity of the catchment. There is data concerning remnant native vegetation (particularly riparian vegetation) and aquatic macro-invertebrates (e.g. from ISC assessments) in the Upper Avoca catchment. However, gaps in our knowledge of terrestrial fauna (birds, reptiles and mammals), threatened species and ecological communities are apparent, particularly at the fine scale level of the catchment. A comprehensive understanding of the ecological condition of the Upper Avoca catchment is not possible without such information. It is probable that considerable amounts of ecological data exist in various databases (government and non-government), but this has not been reviewed in a systematic or defined manner.

During community consultation, the issue of sedimentation was raised as a primary concern. NCCMA indicated that a geomorphic study had been commissioned and was being undertaken concurrently with the CAP. It is understood that the geomorphic study would identify sources of sediment entering the Upper Avoca. The information gained through this study may prove useful in identifying areas in the Upper Avoca tributaries for further erosion control works. The priority areas identified in this study should be compared with the priority areas identified in the results of the geomorphic study.

There are numerous references made to flood management issues within various reports and discussion with flood management staff indicated that lack of data is a major issue in the catchment. This issue requires further discussion with NCCMA Flood Plain Management Unit.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 47 11 Education and training opportunities

The most obvious area of education and training is associated with the management of sediment and instream timber accumulation in the waterway. This was an emotive issue during the community consultation and a natural response from landholders is to mechanically remove these perceived blockages. The accumulation of sediment results from a combination of continuing input of sediment from upstream erosion sources and a prolonged period of low rainfall.

There appeared to be a limited understanding of the benefits of the presence of instream timber in a waterway system and the behaviour of large amounts of timber in high flow events. It is understood that this issue also concerns landholders in the lower Avoca region.

The management of instream timber in a waterway is a balance between protecting the values of the waterway and protecting important constructed assets such as road crossings or buildings. It is recommended that an education and training workshop aimed at helping the community to understand the value of instream timber (i.e. when it is appropriate to intervene and when it is not) would be very beneficial.

It is also recommended that some basic understanding of instream hydrology and sediment generation and transportation would help advance the community’s understanding of why sediment build up occurs and what sort of flow conditions are required to naturally manage waterway systems.

It should be noted that the CMA is currently undertaking a project in the Lower Avoca on instream timber. Working with the local community the CMA will develop a method of identifying when instream timber accumulation is impacting on assets to a point where intervention is required.

At a strategic level, the CAP should provide the guide by which private and public resources should be spent in the Upper Avoca. It should be used proactively by landowners, State and Federal agencies, local governments and other stakeholders. Too often reports like this CAP do not have a ‘life’, are not well promoted, explained, audited, distributed or used in guiding catchment and waterway decisions (e.g. grant applications). As a result priorities are lost and resources are not wisely spent. From an education and training perspective there is a need for the NCCMA to raise the awareness and the profile of the CAP, amongst its own staff and all other stakeholders in the community to ensure it remains a ‘reference’ document for the next 3-5 years.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 48 12 References

Avoca DCWG. 1993. Avoca Catchment Draft Salinity Management Plan – A Land and Water Management Strategy. Avoca Dryland Community Working Group.

Bren, L.J., F. Dyer, P.B. Hairsine, J. Riddiford, V. Siriwardhena and C. Zierholz. 1997. Controlling Sediment and Nutrient Movement within Catchments. Cooperative research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, October 1997.

DFA & DPH. 1992. Code of practice –Piggeries. Department of Food and Agriculture & Department of Planning and Housing, Melbourne.

Douglas, J. and P. Brown. 1997. Aquatic habitat conditions of the Avoca River catchment. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute, Snobs Creek.

DNRE. 2000. Rabbit Management Action Plan 2000-2005.

DSE. 2002. Victorian River Health Strategy. Department of Sustainability and Environment.

DWR. 1989. Water Victoria-A Resources Handbook. Victorian Government Printing Office.

Egis. 2000. North Central Floodplain Management Strategy.

EPA. 1996. Code of Practice – Septic Tanks. Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne.

ID&A. 1998. Avoca Catchment River Health Strategy.

Ladson, A. and White, L. 1999. An Index of Stream Condition: Reference Manual. Waterways Unit DNRE: Victoria.

Linke, G.K. 1991. Stream Salinities in the Avoca River Catchment. Rural Water Commission of Victoria.

McGuckin, J. and P. Bennett. 1999. An Inventory of Fishways and Potential Barriers to Fish Movement and Migration in Victoria. Waterway Unit, Natural Resources and Environment.

NCCMA. 2000b. North Central Catchment Condition Report. North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly, Vic.

NCCMA. 2003a. North Central Regional Catchment Strategy. North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly, Vic.

NCCMA. 2003b. Avoca Nutrient Management Strategy.

NCCMA. 2003c. Avoca Catchment Riparian Vegetation Investigation, North Central CMA.

NCCMA. 2003e. Catchment Condition report, 2003.

NCCMA. 2005a. North Central River Health Strategy. North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly, Vic.

NCCMA. 2005b. North Central Waterways-Values, Threats and Risks. A supporting document to the North Central River Health Strategy. Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 49 NCCMA. 2005c. North Central Native Vegetation Plan North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly, Vic.

NCCMA. 2007. Draft North Central Dryland Management Plan. North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly, Vic.

NRE 1999 and DSE 2004. Index of Stream Condition results. NCCMA. 2004. North Central River Health Strategy – Communication Plan.

NRE. 2001. North Central Weed Action Plan.

Peterson, T, Clifton, C, McGregor, C, Chaplin, H., Heislers, D, Reid, M. and Smith, N. 2002. North Central Salinity Audit: current and future salinity risk areas. Department of Natural Resources and Environment: Bendigo.

SKM. 2002a. Stressed Rivers Project – Environmental Flows Study.

SKM. 2002b. Environmental Flows Study of the Avoca River System-Issues Paper.

SKM. 2003a. Avoca Nutrient Action Plan. Parts A, B and C.

SKM. 2003b. Avoca Nutrient Management Strategy.

SKM. 2005. Environmental Flow Recommendations for the Upper Avoca River System.

RMCG. 2004. Draft Lower Avoca Wetlands Salinity and Water Management Plan.

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

PAGE: 50 Appendix A - Components of strategies and action plans

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

APPENDIX A

Figure A1: North Central River Health Strategy in context with the North Central Regional Catchment Strategy Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

APPENDIX A Appendix B - Upper Avoca reach risk matrix tables

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

APPENDIX B Table B1: Reach 5 Risk Matrix

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

APPENDIX B *Table B2: Reach 6 Risk Matrix

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

APPENDIX B Table B3: Reach 7 Risk Matrix

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

APPENDIX B Table B4: Reach 8 Risk Matrix

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

APPENDIX B Appendix C - All actions from literature review

Catchment Action Plan: Upper Avoca Catchment

APPENDIX C REACH 5 (MANAGEMENT UNIT 2) Avoca River

Action Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Flood Management Extend flood warning service to cover the catchment upstream of Yawong Weir. Reach 5 not given 2010 Reduce adverse effects of flooding Egis (2000); through implementation of Floodplain Management NCCMA (2005a) Flow and height correlations need to be extended to Archdale gauge. Strategy Develop real time runoff routing forecast model for the catchment to Quambatook. Provide greater warning lead time for Charlton and more notice of potential impacts along Tyrrell and Protecting Remnant Vegetation Fencing and enhancement plantings along 85.5 hectares of riparian land Reach 5 - unfenced areas $993,000 (government and other): To be 2010 248 hectares of riparian land (in reaches 5, 6, 7 & NCCMA (2005a) (assume fencing one quarter of reach length - 28.5 km, riparian zone 30 m spread across reaches 5 - 8. 8) protected and enhanced and placed under wide). management agreements in 5 years. Fence and enhance 22 river segments (within Management Unit 2) totalling 43.7 Refer to GIS dataset for 2012 Enhance and protect Creekline Grassy Woodland NCCMA (2003c) - Avoca Catchment Riparian km (0.5-4.8 km segments) locations on Reach 5 (EVC 68), Plains Grassy Woodland (EVC 175), Vegetation Investigation; see details of priority Floodplain Riparian Woodland (EVC 56), Low Rises stretches in Chapter 4 Grassy Woodland (EVC 175-1)

Fencing; Offstream watering over 5.3 km of waterway across Management Unit Refer to GIS dataset for Combined Costs for Reaches 5, 6 & 7: 2012 Improve water quality and reduce nutrient levels SKM (2003); 2 locations on Reach 5 Fencing ($52,740); Offstream watering see GIS package (Part C of SKM report) for ($26,370) details on locations of actions. Instream Habitat Works Reinstate suitable instream habitat for fishing to 10 km of reaches 5 and 6 Avoca River Reach 5, 6 $29,000 2012 Improvement of 1 in score of ISC Physical Form NCCMA (2005a) subindex in 10 years. Water Quality Riparian Zone program: Install silt traps, plant buffer/filter strips in high priority Avoca River; priority from Riparian Zone: annual cost $113,000 2012 Reduce phosphorous and nitrogen loads NCCMA (2005a) areas. Yeungroon Creek to (includes MU 10 and part of lower Avoca contributing to ANMS 2030 target DFA & DPH (1992) Campbell Creek catchment): Benefit/Cost 0.3 Reduce nutrient loads from septic tanks EPA (1996) Implement Best Management Practice to 80% of intensive animal industry Best Management practice: annual cost Minimise nutrient exports from agricultural land by (follow Code of Practice-Piggeries, implement quality assurance for waste $3,000 (includes area from Yeungroon applying flow-reduction practices management, implement extension program to increase industry awareness of Creek to Campbell Creek): Benefit/Cost effluent management) 9.9 Septic Tank Management: Determine areas not suitable for septic tanks and Septic Tank Management: annual cost investigate alternative systems, develop auditing procedure in accordance with $18,000 (includes Management Unit 10): EPA (1996) and implement recommendations from this audit process. Benefit/Cost 5.4

Flow Rate Manage Flow Rate of Avoca River: Coonooer Gauge These flow To enhance aquatic life and improve native fish SKM (2002) At Coonooer Gauge 408200: recommendations stocks and movements Summer flow (Dec.-May): cease to flow (0ML/day) for 13-32 day period once were being met in 2002 every 2 years; minimum median flow (10ML/day) for entire summer period each year (excluding cease to flow period) Winter flow (July-Nov.): >90ML/day for 10 day period twice per year Winter flow (July-Nov.): Minimum median flow (90ML/day) for entire period

Revegetation Control bed and bank instability by structural Avoca River from Yawong Total budget for Management Unit 2: 2012 Increased bank stability; reduced risk of erosion; ID & A (1998) and non-structural works (includes stabilisation of bed and bank, controlling Weir to Charlton Weir $660,000 decreased runoff; improved water quality; increased weeds, fencing stream margins, protecting remnant native vegetation) aesthetic appeal; reduced grazing pressure

Removal of Fish Barriers Construction of fish ladders at Charlton and Yawong Weirs Avoca River from Yawong $400,000 Aquatic links ID&A (1998) Weir to Charlton Weir between all reaches of Avoca River REACH 6 (MANAGEMENT UNIT 2) Avoca River

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Flood Management Extend flood warning service to cover the catchment upstream of Yawong Weir. Reach 6 not given 2010 Reduce adverse effects of flooding Egis (2000); through implementation of Floodplain Management NCCMA (2005a) Flow and height correlations need to be extended to Archdale gauge. Strategy Develop real time runoff routing forecast model for the catchment to Quambatook. Provide greater warning lead time for Charlton and more notice of potential impacts along Tyrrell and Protecting Remnant Vegetation Fencing and enhancement planting on 34.5 hectares of riparian land (assume Reach 6 - unfenced areas $993,000 (government and other): Include 2012 248 hectares of riparian land (in reaches 5, 6, 7 & NCCMA (2005a) fencing one quarter of reach length - 11.5 km, riparian zone 30 m wide). reaches 5-8. 8) protected and enhanced and placed under management agreements in 5 years. Fence and enhance 22 river segments (within Management Unit 2) totalling 43.7 Refer to GIS dataset for 2012 Enhance and protect Creekline Grassy Woodland NCCMA (2003c); see details of priority stretches km (0.5-4.8 km segments) locations on Reach 6 (EVC 68), Plains Grassy Woodland (EVC 175), in Chapter 4 Floodplain Riparian Woodland (EVC 56), Low Rises Grassy Woodland (EVC 175-1)

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Flood Management Extend flood warning service to cover the catchment upstream of Yawong Weir. Reach 7 not given 2010 Reduce adverse effects of flooding Egis (2000); through implementation of Floodplain Management NCCMA (2005a) Flow and height correlations need to be extended to Archdale gauge. Strategy Develop real time runoff routing forecast model for the catchment to Quambatook. Provide greater warning lead time for Charlton and more notice of potential impacts along Tyrrell and Protecting Remnant Vegetation Fencing and enhancement planting on 25.5 hectares of riparian land (assume Reach 7 - unfenced areas $993,000 (government and other): Include 2012 248 hectares of riparian land (in reaches 5, 6, 7 & NCCMA (2005a) fencing one quarter of reach length - 8.4 km, riparian zone 30 m wide). reaches 5-8. 8) protected and enhanced and placed under management agreements in 5 years. Fence and enhance 22 river segments (within Management Unit 2) totalling 43.7 Refer to GIS dataset for 2012 Protect and enhance Creekline Grassy Woodland NCCMA (2003c); see details of priority stretches km (0.5-4.8 km segments) locations on Reach 7 (EVC 68), Plains Grassy Woodland (EVC 175), in Chapter 4 Floodplain Riparian Woodland (EVC 56), Low Rises Grassy Woodland (EVC 175-1)

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Flood Management Extend flood warning service to cover the catchment upstream of Yawong Weir. Reach 8 not given 2010 Reduce adverse effects of flooding Egis (2000); through implementation of Floodplain Management NCCMA (2005a) Flow and height correlations need to be extended to Archdale gauge. Strategy Develop real time runoff routing forecast model for the catchment to Quambatook. Protecting Remnant Vegetation Fencing and enhancement planting on 21 hectares of riparian land (assume Reach 8 - unfenced areas $993,000 (government and other): Include 2012 248 hectares of riparian land (in reaches 5, 6, 7 & NCCMA (2005a) fencing one quarter of reach length - 7 km, riparian zone 30 m wide). reaches 5-8. 8) protected and enhanced and placed under management agreements in 5 years. Control bed and bank instability by stabilisation programs, fencing riparian Avoca River from Mills $410,000 ID & A (1998) vegetation and stream margins, control of weeds, protecting and enhancing Corner to Pelletts Lane; remnant native vegetation Pellets Lane to Headwaters and Avoca township

Fence and enhance 4 segments of Reach 8, Refer to GIS dataset for 2012 Protect and enhance NCCMA (2003c); see details of priority stretches totalling 6.8 km (1.1-2.2 km segments) locations on Reach 8 Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68), Low Rises in Chapter 4 Grassy Woodland (EVC 175-1) Fencing; Off-stream watering; Revegetation; Riparian Maintenance (including Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($3110); Offstream watering 2012 Improve water quality and reduce nutrient levels SKM (2003); see GIS package (Part C of SKM weed control) over 0.31 km stretch of Avoca River locations on Reach 8 ($1,555); Revegetation ($16,794); report) for details on exact locations of actions. Riparian Maintenance ($622) Fencing; Off-stream watering over 4.3 km of Avoca River Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($43,140); Offstream watering 2012 Improve water quality and reduce nutrient levels SKM (2003); locations on Reach 8 ($12,135) see GIS package (Part C of SKM report) for details on exact locations of actions. Nutrient Management Implement priority programs from Avoca Nutrient Reach 8 Annual cost $3,000 to be split between 2010 Reduce annual phosphorous and nitrogen loads by NCCMA (2005a) Management Strategy (ANMS). two sub-catchments. 0.9 and 7.8 tonnes respectively DFA & DPH (1992)

Implement Best Management Practice to 80% of intensive animal industry (follow Code of Practice-Piggeries, implement quality assurance for waste management, implement extension program to increase industry awareness of effluent management) Wetlands Undertake Index of Wetland Condition assessment of wetlands connected to Wetlands connected to not given Improvement in condition of high environmental NCCMA (2005a) reach 8. Implement specific wetland management actions identified in Regional Reach 8 value wetlands and no further decline in extent of Wetlands Strategy (in development). wetlands REACH 10 MANAGEMENT UNIT 10 Campbell Creek

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Protecting Remnant Vegetation Protect and enhance remnant EVCs by fencing, weed control, removal of stock Refer to GIS dataset for Protect and enhance existing EVC's NCCMA (2003c) etc.on Campbell Creek: 3 segments totalling 7.5 km (0.5-5.8 km) locations of segments Fencing; Off-stream watering; revegetation; riparian maintenance over 23.0 km Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($229,610); Off-stream watering Stabilisation of bank and bed erosion; reduction in SKM (2003a) Part B, pg 30 stretch of waterway (within entire Management Unit) locations of works ($114,805), revegetation ($1,239,894); nutrient sources from urban centres. riparian maintenance ($45, 922)

Control bed and bank erosion by structural and non-structural works; includes Campbell Creek $1,850,000 (to be split between whole 2012 Increased bank stability; reduced risk of erosion; ID & A (1998) stabilisation programs, fencing riparian vegetation and stream margins, Management Unit) decreased runoff; improved water quality; increased protecting and enhancing native vegetation aesthetic appeal; reduced grazing pressure

Instream Habitat Works Maintain aquatic diveristy through riparian/instream management; includes Campbell Creek 2012 Increased natural productivity and biodiversity, ID & A (1998) revegetation and fencing riparian zone and adopting catchment specific guiding instream cover and hydraulic diversity principles under Significantly Enhanced Aquatic Refuges (SEARs) network

Nutrient Management Planting of buffer/filter strips, expanding buffer/filters strip widths and buffer/filter Campbell Creek (and Riparian Zone: annual cost $113,000 (to 2012 To minimise nutrient exports from agricultural land NCCMA (2003b) strip maintenance; installation of wetlands or silt traps; installation of diversion catchment) be split between four sub-catchments) by applying flor-reducing practices to retain banks; implement extension program to promote the adoption of flow reduction suspended nutrients. measures. Undertake erosion control works including ongoing maintenance requirements Campbell Creek (and Erosion Control: annual cost $29,000 2012 Stabilise streambeds and banks and gullies to NCCMA (2003b) catchment) reduce nutrients generated in catchment. Septic Tank Management: Determine areas not suitable for septic tanks and Campbell Creek (and $7,000 (to be split between two sub- 2012 To reduce nutrient loads from septic tanks entering NCCMA (2003b) investigate alternative systems, develop auditing procedure in accordance with catchment) catchments) waterways in the Avoca catchment. EPA (1996) and implement recommendations from this audit process.

Develop or expand on existing awareness campigns, involve local environmental Campbell Creek (and Nutrient Awareness: annually $8,000 (to 2012 To raise awareness of nutrient issues in urban NCCMA (2003b) groups, Landcare and Waterwacth in the awareness campaign. catchment) be split between three sub-catchments) areas and provide information on the impacts that urban centrea have on nutrient loads.

Develop stormwater management plans and implement the high priority Campbell Creek (and $6,000 (to be split between four sub- 2012 To improve the quality of urban stormwater runoff NCCMA (2003b) recommendations of the stormwater management plans. catchment) catchments) within the Avoca catchment. Investigate alternative to emergency discharge from the St Arnaud WWTP Campbell Creek (and Not given 2012 To minimise nutrient contributions from wastewater NCCMA (2003b) catchment) treatment plants Implement high priority actions from Northern Grampians Stormwater Across Management Unit 10 Cost not given Reduction of nutrient sources from urban centres. SKM (2003a) Part B, pg 30 Management Plan, particularly those concerning nutrient sources from St. Arnaud township. REACH 11 (MANAGEMENT UNIT 10) Strathfillian Creek

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Flow Rate Management Manage Flow Rates in Strathfillan Creek as follows: Upper Avoca catchment: To enhance aquatic life and improve native fish SKM (2005) Strathfillan Creek (at stocks and movements December-May: 0ML/day (180 days); >2ML/day (6 day duration/once annually) Kooreh): Reach 11

July-October: 2ML/day (entire period); >9ML/day (7 days twice annually); >550ML/day (2 days, twice annually)

Protecting Remnant Vegetation Fencing; Off-stream watering; revegetation; riparian maintenance over 23.0 km Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($229,610); Off-stream watering Stabilisation of bank and bed erosion; reduction in SKM (2003a) Part B, pg 30 stretch of waterway (within entire Management Unit) locations of works ($114,805), revegetation ($1,239,894); nutrient sources from urban centres. riparian maintenance ($45, 922)

Protect and enhance remnant EVCs by fencing, weed control, removal of stock Refer to GIS dataset for Protect and enhance remnant EVCs. NCCMA (2003c) etc. in Strathfillan Creek: 7 segments totalling 5.5 km (0.2-2.1 km ) segment locations.

Control bed and bank erosion by structural and non-structural works; includes Strathfillan Creek (included $1,850,000 (to be split between whole 2012 Increased bank stability; reduced risk of erosion; ID & A (1998) stabilisation programs, fencing riparian vegetation and stream margins, protecting as part of Campbell Creek Management Unit) decreased runoff; improved water quality; increased and enhancing native vegetation sub-catchment). aesthetic appeal; reduced grazing pressure

Instream Habitat Maintain aquatic diversity through riparian/instream management; includes Strathfillan Creek (included 2012 Increased natural productivity and biodiversity, ID & A (1998) revegetation and fencing riparian zone and adopting catchment specific guiding as part of Campbell Creek instream cover and hydraulic diversity principles under Significantly Enhanced Aquatic Refuges (SEARs) network sub-catchment).

Nutrient Management Planting of buffer/filter strips, expanding buffer/filters strip widths and buffer/filter Strathfillan Creek (included Riparian Zone: annual cost $113,000 (to 2012 To minimise nutrient exports from agricultural land NCCMA (2003b) strip maintenance; installation of wetlands or silt traps; installation of diversion as part of Campbell Creek be split between four sub-catchments) by applying flor-reducing practices to retain banks; implement extension program to promote the adoption of flow reduction sub-catchment). suspended nutrients. measures. Undertake erosion control works including ongoing maintenance requirements Strathfillan Creek (included Erosion Control: annual cost $29,000 2012 Stabilise streambeds and banks and gullies to NCCMA (2003b) as part of Campbell Creek reduce nutrients generated in catchment. sub-catchment).

Septic Tank Management: Determine areas not suitable for septic tanks and Strathfillan Creek (included $7,000 (to be split between two sub- 2012 To reduce nutrient loads from septic tanks entering NCCMA (2003b) investigate alternative systems, develop auditing procedure in accordance with as part of Campbell Creek catchments) waterways in the Avoca catchment. EPA (1996) and implement recommendations from this audit process. sub-catchment).

Develop or expand on existing awareness campaigns, involve local Strathfillan Creek (included Nutrient Awareness: annually $8,000 (to 2012 To raise awareness of nutrient issues in urban areas NCCMA (2003b) environmental groups, Landcare and Waterwatch in the awareness campaign. as part of Campbell Creek be split between three sub-catchments) and provide information on the impacts that urban sub-catchment). centres have on nutrient loads.

Develop stormwater management plans and implement the high priority Strathfillan Creek (included $6,000 (to be split between four sub- 2012 To improve the quality of urban stormwater runoff NCCMA (2003b) recommendations of the stormwater management plans. as part of Campbell Creek catchments) within the Avoca catchment. sub-catchment).

Investigate alternative to emergency discharge from the St Arnaud WWTP Strathfillan Creek (included Not given 2012 To minimise nutrient contributions from wastewater NCCMA (2003b) as part of Campbell Creek treatment plants sub-catchment).

Implement high priority actions from Northern Grampians Stormwater Across Management Unit 10 Cost not given Reduction of nutrient sources from urban centres. SKM (2003a) Part B, pg 30 Management Plan, particularly those concerning nutrient sources from St. Arnaud township.

Fish Management Enhance recreational fishing through stock enhancement by maintaining stock Teddington Reservoir in $20,000/year for five years ID&A (1998) program and monitoring angler activity Campbell Creek catchment (along Strathfillan Creek) REACH 12 (MANAGEMENT UNIT 10) Middle Creek

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Protecting Remnant Vegetation Protect and enhance remnant EVCs by fencing, weed control, removal of stock Refer to GIS dataset for To protect and enhance remnant EVCs etc. in Middle Creek: 1 segment of 1.4 km location of segment. Fencing; Off-stream watering; revegetation; riparian maintenance over 23.0 km Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($229,610); Off-stream watering Stabilisation of bank and bed erosion; reduction in SKM (2003a) Part B, pg 30 stretch of waterway (within entire Management Unit) locations of works ($114,805), revegetation ($1,239,894); nutrient sources from urban centres. riparian maintenance ($45, 922)

Control bed and bank erosion by structural and non-structural works; includes Middle Creek (as part of $1,850,000 (to be split between whole 2012 Increased bank stability; reduced risk of erosion; ID & A (1998) stabilisation programs, fencing riparian vegetation and stream margins, Campbells Creek sub- Management Unit) decreased runoff; improved water quality; protecting and enhancing native vegetation catchment) increased aesthetic appeal; reduced grazing pressure Instream Habitat Works Maintain aquatic diversity through riparian/instream management; includes Middle Creek (as part of 2012 Increased natural productivity and biodiversity, ID & A (1998) revegetation and fencing riparian zone and adopting catchment specific guiding Campbells Creek sub- instream cover and hydraulic diversity principles under Significantly Enhanced Aquatic Refuges (SEARs) network catchment)

Nutrient Management Planting of buffer/filter strips, expanding buffer/filters strip widths and buffer/filter Middle Creek and tributaries Riparian Zone: annual cost $113,000 (to 2012 To minimise nutrient exports from agricultural land NCCMA (2003b) strip maintenance; installation of wetlands or silt traps; installation of diversion (as part of Campbells Creek be split between four sub-catchments) by applying flow-reducing practices to retain banks; implement extension program to promote the adoption of flow reduction sub-catchment) suspended nutrients. measures. Undertake erosion control works including ongoing maintenance requirements Middle Creek and tributaries Erosion Control: annual cost $29,000 2012 Stabilise streambeds and banks and gullies to NCCMA (2003b) (as part of Campbells Creek reduce nutrients generated in catchment. sub-catchment)

Septic Tank Management: Determine areas not suitable for septic tanks and Middle Creek and tributaries $7,000 (to be split between two sub- 2012 To reduce nutrient loads from septic tanks entering NCCMA (2003b) investigate alternative systems, develop auditing procedure in accordance with (as part of Campbells Creek catchments) waterways in the Avoca catchment. EPA (1996) and implement recommendations from this audit process. sub-catchment)

Develop or expand on existing awareness campaigns, involve local Middle Creek and tributaries Nutrient Awareness: annually $8,000 (to 2012 To raise awareness of nutrient issues in urban NCCMA (2003b) environmental groups, Landcare and Waterwatch in the awareness campaign. (as part of Campbells Creek be split between three sub-catchments) areas and provide information on the impacts that sub-catchment) urban centres have on nutrient loads.

Develop stormwater management plans and implement the high priority Middle Creek and tributaries $6,000 (to be split between four sub- 2012 To improve the quality of urban stormwater runoff NCCMA (2003b) recommendations of the stormwater management plans. (as part of Campbells Creek catchments) within the Avoca catchment. sub-catchment)

Investigate alternative to emergency discharge from the St Arnaud WWTP Middle Creek and tributaries Not given 2012 To minimise nutrient contributions from wastewater NCCMA (2003b) (as part of Campbells Creek treatment plants sub-catchment)

Implement high priority actions from Northern Grampians Stormwater Across Management Unit Cost not given Reduction of nutrient sources from urban centres. SKM (2003a) Part B, pg 30 Management Plan, particularly those concerning nutrient sources from St. 10 Arnaud township. REACH 13 MANAGEMENT UNIT 13 Fentons Creek

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Revegetation Fence stream margins, manage riparian zone throughout catchment, including Fentons Creek - Reach 13$3,075,000 to be split between works on 2012 Increased hydraulic diversity, instream cover, ID & A (1998) fencing, revegetation and adopting SEARs network Fentons, Sandy, Homebush, natural productivity and biodiversity Protecting Remnant Vegetation Control bed and bank erosion in entire Management Unit by structural and non- Fentons Creek - Reach 13Yawong Creeks and Coonooer Bridge 2012 Increased bank stability; reduced risk of erosion; ID & A (1998) structural works; includes stabilisation programs, fencing riparian vegetation and decreased runoff; improved water quality; increased stream margins, protecting and enhancing native vegetation aesthetic appeal; reduced grazing pressure

Protect and enhance remnant EVCs by fencing, weed control, removal of stock Refer to GIS dataset for To protect and enhance remnant EVCs. NCCMA (2003c) etc. in Fentons Creek (4 segments totalling 8.5 km) split between Reach 13 and segment locations. Reach 14. Nutrient Management Fencing, offstream watering, revegetation, riparian maintenance over 4.48 km of Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($44,760), Offstream watering Stabilisation of bank and bed erosion; long term SKM 2003a Part B pg 37 Management Unit 13 segment locations ($22,380), revegetating ($241, 704), improvement in ISC and ARH (DSS) scores; riparian maintenance ($8,952) Costs to be reduction in nutrient sources from urban centres. split across entire Management Unit

Fencing, offstream watering, revegetation, riparian maintenance over 17.05 km of Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($170,510), Offstream watering Stabilisation of bank and bed erosion; long term SKM 2003a Part B pg 37 Management Unit 13 segment locations ($82,255), revegetating ($920, 754), improvement in ISC and ARH (DSS) scores; riparian maintenance ($34,102) Costs to reduction in nutrient sources from urban centres. be split across entire Management Unit

Fencing and offstream watering over 2.07 km of Management Unit 13 Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($20,670), offstream watering Stabilisation of bank and bed erosion; long term SKM 2003a Part B pg 37 segment locations ($10,335) Costs to be split across entire improvement in ISC and ARH (DSS) scores; Management Unit reduction in nutrient sources from urban centres. REACH 14 (MANAGEMENT UNIT 8) Fentons Creek

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Flow Rate Management Manage Cherry Tree Creek flow rate: Cherry Tree Creek To enhance aquatic life and improve native fish SKM (2005) stocks and movements December-May: 0ML/day (180 days) to facilitate decomposition of organic matter; >2ML/day (6 day duration/once annually)

July-October: 2ML/day (entire period) ; >6ML/day (7 days twice annually) ; >450ML/day (2 days, twice annually).

Protecting Remnant Vegetation Protection and enhancement of remnant EVCs (easting and northings in Refer to GIS dataset for Protect and enhance remnant EVCs. NCCMA (2003c) reference give midpoints of reach) in Cherry Tree Creek: 5 segments totalling 4.3 locations. km

Fencing, offstream watering, revegetation and riparian maintenance over 104.8 Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($1,047,610); Offstream watering SKM (2003). km of waterway (across Management Unit, Reaches 15 and 17). locations. ($523,805); Revegetation ($5,657,094); Riparian Maintenance ($209, 522) (Costs to be split across Management Unit)

Control bed and bank erosion in entire Management Unit by structural and non- Cherry Tree Creek (as one $1,805,000 (to be split between four Increased bank stability; reduced risk of erosion; ID & A (1998) structural works; includes stabilisation programs, fencing riparian vegetation and of four creeks within waterways including Reach 15 and 17) decrased runoff; improved water quality; increased stream margins, protecting and enhancing native vegetation Management Unit) aesthetic appeal; reduced grazing pressure

Revegetation Maintain aquatic diveristy through riparian/instream management; includes Cherry Tree Creek (as one Increased natural productivity and biodiversity, ID & A (1998) revegetation and fencing riparian zone and adopting catchment specific guiding of four creeks within instream cover and hydraulic diversity principles under Significantly Enhanced Aquatic Refuges (SEARs) network Management Unit) REACH 16 (MANAGEMENT UNIT 13) Homebush Creek

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Revegetation Fence stream margins, manage riparian zone throughout catchment, including Homebush Creek$3,075,000 to be split between works on 2012 Increased hydraulic diversity, instream cover, ID & A (1998) fencing, revegetation and adopting SEARs network Fentons, Sandy, Homebush, natural productivity and biodiversity Protecting Remnant Vegetation Control bed and bank erosion in entire Management Unit by structural and non- Homebush CreekYawong Creeks and Coonooer Bridge 2012 Increased bank stability; reduced risk of erosion; ID & A (1998) structural works; includes stabilisation programs, fencing riparian vegetation and decreased runoff; improved water quality; increased stream margins, protecting and enhancing native vegetation aesthetic appeal; reduced grazing pressure

Protect and enhance remnant EVCs by fencing, weed control, removal of stock Refer to GIS dataset for Protect and enhance remnant EVCs. NCCMA (2003c) etc. in Homebush Creek: 4 segments totalling 3.9 km segment locations Nutrient Management Fencing, offstream watering, revegetation, riparian maintenance over 4.48 km of Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($44,760), Offstream watering Stabilisation of bank and bed erosion; long term SKM 2003a Part B pg 37 Management Unit 13 segment locations ($22,380), revegetating ($241, 704), improvement in ISC and ARH (DSS) scores; riparian maintenance ($8,952) Costs to be reduction in nutrient sources from urban centres. split across entire Management Unit

Fencing, offstream watering, revegetation, riparian maintenance over 17.05 km Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($170,510), Offstream watering Stabilisation of bank and bed erosion; long term SKM 2003a Part B pg 37 of Management Unit 13 segment locations ($82,255), revegetating ($920, 754), improvement in ISC and ARH (DSS) scores; riparian maintenance ($34,102) Costs to reduction in nutrient sources from urban centres. be split across entire Management Unit

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Flow Rate Management Manage Mountain Creek flow rate: Upper Avoca catchment: To enhance aquatic life and improve native fish SKM (2005) Mountain Creek (Long Gully stocks and movements December-April: 0ML/day (maximum 20 days) ; 1ML/day (entire period); Road): near Reach 17 >3ML/day (7 day duration/four times annually).

July-October: 7ML/day (entire period) ; >17ML/day (4 days, four times annually) ; >400ML/day (1 day, twice annually).

Protecting Remnant Vegetation Protection and enhancement of remnant EVCs in Mountain Creek: 4 segments Refer to GIS dataset for To protect and enhance remnant EVCs. NCCMA (2003c) totalling 1.7 km location of segments. Fencing, offstream watering, revegetation and riparian maintenance over 104.8 Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($1,047,610); Offstream watering Stabilisation of bank and bed erosion; reduction in SKM (2003). km of waterway (across Management Unit, Reaches 15 and 17). locations. ($523,805); Revegetation ($5,657,094); nutrient sources from urban centres. Riparian Maintenance ($209, 522) (Costs to be split across Management Unit)

Control bed and bank erosion in entire Management Unit by structural and non- Mountain Creek (as one of $1,805,000 (to be split between four Increased bank stability; reduced risk of erosion; ID & A (1998) structural works; includes stabilisation programs, fencing riparian vegetation and four creeks within waterways including Reach 15 and 17) decreased runoff; improved water quality; increased stream margins, protecting and enhancing native vegetation Management Unit) aesthetic appeal; reduced grazing pressure

Revegetation Maintain aquatic diversity through riparian/instream management; includes Mountain Creek (as one of Increased natural productivity and biodiversity, ID & A (1998) revegetation and fencing riparian zone and adopting catchment specific guiding four creeks within instream cover and hydraulic diversity principles under Significantly Enhanced Aquatic Refuges (SEARs) network Management Unit) REACH 18 MANAGEMENT UNIT 12 Number Two Creek

Category Action Location Cost Timeframe Action Target Reference Revegetation Control bed and bank erosion in entire Management Unit by structural and non- Eroded areas of Number $825,000 to be split across six locations 2012 Increased bank stability; reduced risk of erosion; ID & A (1998) structural works; includes stabilisation programs, fencing riparian vegetation and Two Creek (Number 1 and 2 Creeks, Cockings and decreased runoff; improved water quality; increased stream margins, protecting and enhancing native vegetation Mangans Rd Gullies, Rutherford and aesthetic appeal; reduced grazing pressure Amphitheatre Creeks) Fencing, offstream watering over 2.7 km of western tributaries Refer to GIS dataset for Fencing ($27,440), Offstream watering Stabilisation of bank and bed erosion. SKM (2003A) Part B, pg 36 location of segments on ($13,720) (Costs to be split across Number Two Creek. Management Unit) Protecting Remnant Vegetation Protect and enhance remnant EVCs by fencing, weed control, removal of stock Refer to GIS dataset for To protect and enhance remnant EVCs. NICOMA (2003c) etc. in Number Two Creek: 2 segments totalling 1.5 km location of segments.